ABSTRACT
[...]CURES' BILL PROMOTES PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS Congressional leaders are developing the next version of the 21st Century Cures Act, including provisions to advance research related to the COVID-19 crisis as part of initiatives for bringing innovative therapies to market faster (see https://bit.ly/2SKfA4S). Cures 2.0 continues and updates some of the main themes of the first Cures Act: support development of treatments for rare diseases, patient-focused drug development, diversity in clinical trials, expanded use of digital health systems, increased health literacy, and utilization of real-world data. A public education campaign, moreover, would aim to counter concerns about the safety of vaccines to promote widespread vaccination. Because these treatments are costly and unprofitable for biopharma companies to test and market, the legislation proposes additional financial support for both pre-market studies and post-market production and subsidized higher reimbursement rates for antibiotics that address critical needs.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundPsoriasis (PsO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) can greatly impact quality of life and result in substantial personal and societal costs. Complete and up to date data on the prevalence and incidence of these conditions and whether these change over time and vary by age is important for healthcare service planning so that specialist care and funding can be appropriately allocated.ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence and incidence of PsO and PsA in males and females from 2009-2019 across all age groups in England.MethodsWe used Clinical Practice Research Datalink AURUM, a primary care electronic health record database, including 20% of the English population. The codes used to identify patients with PsO and PsA were selected by rheumatologists and dermatologists and cross-checked with published code lists from other studies to ensure inclusion of all relevant codes. All included patients must have data for at least 1 year before their diagnosis. The annual incidence and point prevalence were calculated from 2009-2019 and stratified by age/sex. The study period ended in 2019 to avoid COVID-19 pandemic affecting results.ResultsThe prevalence of PsO and PsA in males and females increased annually, peaking in 2019 (PsO males 2.41% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.40, 2.42];PsO females 2.60% [95% CI 2.59-2.61];PsA males 0.20% [95% CI 0.20-0.20];PsA females 0.21% [95% CI 0.21- 0.22]), as illustrated in Table 1. In 2019, the prevalence of PsO and PsA was highest in the over 65 years age group;PsO 4.25% [95% CI 4.22-4.28] and PsA 0.38% [95% CI 0.37-0.38]. The annual incidence (per 100,000 person years) of PsO has gradually decreased in males (from 168 (164-171) in 2009 to 148 (145-151) in 2019) but in females it has been stable with a slight annual decrease (from 180 (177-184) in 2009 to 173 (170-176) in 2019). The annual incidence for PsA has increased in both males and females (13 (12-14) in 2009 and 15 (14-16) in 2019 for males and 12 (11-13) in 2009 and 18 (17-19) in 2019 for females).ConclusionThe increasing prevalence of PsO and PsA highlights the importance of organising healthcare services to meet this need, particularly in the elderly population.ReferencesNIL.Table 1.Prevalence of PsO and PsA from 2009-2019 in EnglandYear20092010201120122013201420152016201720182019Population (n)1073383110910802110318501118036711343299112249341137842211657996119336261223432512420998PsO (n)216841229106239819250667259988268032276804286499295712304568311104PsO prevalence (%, 95%CI)-Male1.98 (1.96-1.99)2.06 (2.05- 2.07)2.13 (2.12-2.14)2.19 (2.18-2.20)2.24 (2.23- 2.25)2.33 (2.32- 2.34)2.37 (2.36- 2.38)2.39 (2.38- 2.40)2.40 (2.39- 2.41)2.40 (2.39- 2.42)2.41 (2.40- 2.42)-Female2.07 (2.05- 2.08)2.14 (2.13- 2.16)2.22 (2.21- 2.23)2.29 (2.28- 2.31)2.35 (2.33- 2.36)2.45 (2.43- 2.46)2.50 (2.49- 2.51)2.53 (2.52- 2.54)2.56 (2.54- 2.57)2.58 (2.56- 2.59)2.60 (2.59- 2.61)PsO incidence (100,000 person years)-Male168 (164-171)158 (155- 162)161 (158-165)153 (150-157)161 (157- 164)156 (153- 159)155 (152- 159)154 (151- 157)153 (150-156)150 (147-153)148 (145-151)-Female180 (177-184)176 (172-179)181 (177-184)171 (167-174)175 (171-178)176 (172-180)179 (176-183)178 (174-181)177 (174-181)174 (170-177)173 (170-176)PsA (n)1444515443164681752218545196182072021994232572451425683PsA prevalence (%, 95%CI)-Male0.14 (0.14- 0.14)0.15 (0.14- 0.15)0.15 (0.15- 0.16)0.16 (0.16- 0.16)0.17 (0.16- 0.17)0.18 (0.17- 0.18)0.18 (0.18- 0.19)0.19 (0.18- 0.19)0.19 (0.19- 0.20)0.20 (0.19- 0.20)0.20 (0.20- 0.20)-Female0.13 (0.13- 0.13)0.14 (0.13- 0.14)0.15 (0.14- 0.15)0.15 (0.15- 0.16)0.16 (0.16- 0.16)0.17 (0.17- 0.18)0.18 (0.18- 0.18)0.19 (0.19- 0.19)0.20 (0.19- 0.20)0.20 (0.20- 0.21)0.21 (0.21- 0.22)PsA incidence (100,000 person years)-Male13 (12- 14)12 (11- 13)13 (12- 14)12 (11- 13)13 (12-14)14 (13- 15)14 (13- 15)14 (13-15)1514-16)14(13- 15)15 (14-16)-Female12 (11- 13)13 (12- 14)13 (12- 14)14 (13-15)14 (13-15)15 (14-16)17 (16- 18)16 (15- 17)17 (16- 18)18 (17-19)18 (17-19)Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsArani Vivekanantham: None declared, Edward Burn: None dec ared, Marta Pineda-Moncusí: None declared, Sara Khalid Grant/research support from: SK has received research grant funding from the UKRI and Alan Turing Institute outside this work. SK's research group has received grant support from Amgen and UCB Biopharma., Daniel Prieto-Alhambra Grant/research support from: DPA's department has received grant/s from Amgen, Chiesi-Taylor, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Biopharma. His research group has received consultancy fees from Astra Zeneca and UCB Biopharma. Amgen, Astellas, Janssen, Synapse Management Partners and UCB Biopharma have funded or supported training programmes organised by DPA's department., Laura Coates Speakers bureau: LC has been paid as a speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Consultant of: LC has worked as a paid consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Grant/research support from: LC has received grants/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundRheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis, including either Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) and Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS), are some of the most diagnosed autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) in rheumatologists' routine clinical practice [1]. Understanding patients' health and functional status is crucial to provide personalized management strategies to optimize disease control and enhance the quality of life.ObjectivesWe aimed to compare disease burden in patients with RA, PsA or AS by assessing Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Health, Global Mental Health, Physical Function and Fatigue 4a together with VAS Pain.MethodsData were obtained in the international COVID vaccination in autoimmune rheumatic diseases study second e-survey (COVAD study). Demographics, AIRD diagnosis, disease activity, PROMIS Global Physical health, PROMIS Global Mental Health, PROMIS Physical Function SF10 and PROMIS Fatigue 4a score were extracted from the COVAD study database. For this study, we only included patients with self-reported RA or spondyloarthritis (either PsA or AS) undergoing active treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying drugs (DMARDs) and/or biologic DMARDs, who answered all the survey questions. Active disease was defined as the patient's perception of their disease as active in the four weeks before their first COVID-19 vaccine shot. Analysis of Variance with Bartlett's and Tukey's test was used to compare continuous variables between groups.ResultsFrom January to June 2022, n.1907 patients with RA, female 87.62% (1671/1907), with mean age (±SD) 50.95 ±13.67, n.311 patients with PsA, female 67.20% (209/311), with a mean age of 50.42 ±12.70, and n.336 patients with AS, male 51.31% (209/311), with a mean age of 43.13 ±12.75 years, responded to the COVAD e-survey.In those with active disease, neither physical health, global mental health, physical function, fatigue, nor pain were different among groups (Table 1, Figure 1). Patients with inactive AS had higher mean global physical health scores than RA patients (13.13 ±2.93 VS RA 12.48 ±2.90, p=0.01, Table 1). Those with inactive RA or PsA showed more severe fatigue (PsA 10.58 ±2.22, RA 10.45 ±4.08 VS 9.4 ±4.13, p =0.01 for both). Patients with inactive RA also reported poorer physical function and more residual pain than those with AS (37.79 ±8.86 VS 41.13 ±7.79, p<0.001;3.87 ±2.45 VS 3.34 ±2.39, p=0.01, respectively). Similarly, residual pain was perceived as higher in patients with inactive PsA than those with AS (4.04 ±2.50 VS 3.34 ±2.39, p=0.01)ConclusionDisease burden is roughly comparable in patients with active RA, PsA or AS. Patients with inactive RA and PsA suffer higher disease burden than those with inactive AS.Reference[1]Mease PJ, Liu M, Rebello S, Kang H, Yi E, Park Y, Greenberg JD. Comparative Disease Burden in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, or Axial Spondyloarthritis: Data from Two Corrona Registries. Rheumatol Ther. 2019 Dec;6(4):529-542.Table 1.Patient-Reported Outcome Measures between groups.Inactive diseaseAS (n.185)PsA (n.179)RA (n.1167)MeanSDMeanSDMeanSDPROMIS Global Physical Health13.13*2.9512.433.2712.482.90p=0.01, VS RAPROMIS Global Mental Health13.313.3612.973.3312.843.17PROMIS Fatigue 4a9.44.1310.58*4.2210.45*4.08p=0.01, bothPROMIS Physical Function SF10 Score41.137.3939.279.0137.79*8.86p<0.001, VS ASVAS Pain3.342.394.04*2.503.87*2.45p=0.01, bothActive DiseaseAS (n.35)PsA (n.38)RA (n.189)MeanSDMeanSDMeanSDPROMIS Global Physical Health11.053.1910.102.7611.243.41PROMIS Global Mental Health11.313.2610.843.6311.893.30PROMIS Fatigue 4a12.944.8712.844.4211.754.68PROMIS Physical Function SF10 Score35.829.6233.528.7634.909.80VAS Pain4.682.775.02.544.682.61Figure 1.Violin plots showing kernel densities, quartiles and median for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for patients with RA, PsA and AS, stratified by disease activity status.[Figure omitted. See PDF]Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsVincenzo Venerito: None declared, Marc Fornaro: None declared, Florenzo Iannone: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Masataka Kuwana: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: JD has received research funding from CSL Limited., Mrudula Joshi: None declared, Sreoshy Saha: None declared, Syahrul Sazliyana Shaharir: None declared, Wanruchada Katchamart: None declared, Phonpen Akarawatcharangura Goo: None declared, Lisa Traboco: None declared, Yi-Ming Chen: None declared, Parikshit Sen: None declared, James B. Lilleker Speakers bureau: JBL has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Biogen. None is related to this manuscript., Consultant of: JBL has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Biogen. None is related to this manuscript., Arvind Nune: None declared, John Pauling: None declared, Chris Wincup: None declared, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees, and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre;none are related to this manuscript, Grant/research support from: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees, and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre;none are related to this manuscript, Marcin Milchert: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Carlo Vinicio Caballero: None declared, COVAD Study: None declared, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Speakers bureau: RA has a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roivant., Grant/research support from: RA has a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roivant., Latika Gupta: None declared.
ABSTRACT
The United States faces an unprecedented mental health crisis, with youth and young adults at the center. Even before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, nearly 50 percent of college students reported at least one mental health concern. Without adequate mental health support, college students, including those at community colleges, may be at risk for a variety of academic and nonacademic consequences that negatively affect their overall well-being, including lower college completion rates, higher rates of substance use, and lower lifetime earning potential. This research brief describes a study examining eight community colleges from across the United States which found that, although the institutions did offer mental health services, most lacked a clear organizing framework for those efforts, and that financial challenges limited the support offered to students. The research also highlighted the importance of community college leaders explicitly prioritizing student mental health, as well as broad staff buy-in to the effort. [For the full report, "Supporting the Mental Health Needs of Community College Students. Research Report. RR-A2552-1," see ED627480.]
ABSTRACT
BackgroundPatients suffering from systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) display poor antibody development after two doses of mRNA vaccinations leaving these patients with only limited humoral protection against severe SARS-CoV-2 disease courses. Of key interest is the effect of conventional synthetic (csDMARD) and biological/ targeted drugs (b/tsDMARDs) disease modifying antirheumatic drugs on the time of protection.ObjectivesTo compare antibody titer development in patients with vasculitis and connective tissue disease (CTD) with healthy controls 6 months after two mRNA vaccinations and after third immunization. To analyze factors, that affect the velocity of titer decline, well as qualitative humoral response.MethodsPatients with SARD were enrolled and matched for gender and age with healthy control subjects (HC) and the humoral response after 6 months to two doses of mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 in terms of SARS-COV-2 antibody titer was assessed. In addition to binding antibody units (BAU) we also analyzed neutralizing antibodies. Patients receiving B-cell depleting therapy and those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (via detection of nucleocapsid antibodies) were excluded. Differences between two groups were calculated with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.ResultsA total of 53 patients with SARD (42 patients suffering from connective tissue disease and 11 with vasculitis respectively) and 73 HC were analysed. Interestingly only patients receiving a combination therapy of different csDMARDs/ b/tsDMARDs demonstrated diminished antibody titers 6 months after two doses of mRNA vaccine (p-value p-value<0,001), whereas patients receiving only csDMARD as monotherapy displayed comparable antibody levels to healthy controls. This effect was equalized after a third booster vaccination (p-value=0,13). Concerning disease entities, patients with vasculitis seemed to have lower BAU than HC (p-value<0,05) and patients suffering from CTD. After third vaccination both patient groups had lower antibody levels than HC (vasculitis: p-value <0,0001;CTD: p-value p-value<0,01). Lower antibody levels before third vaccination correlated with lower antibodies after third immunization.ConclusionPatients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases undergoing combination therapy may be more vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection, due to reduced antibody levels 6 months following two doses of mRNA vaccine. Our data strongly recommends antibody measurements in patients receiving combination therapy and individualized earlier booster vaccination.Figure 1.Anti-SARS-Cov-2 S antibody titers. A: Antibody titers measured 6 months after two doses of mRNA vaccination in patients with connective tissue disease, vasculitis and healthy controls. B, Antibody levels according to disease entity. AB: antibody;BAU: binding antibody unit;CTD: connective tissue disease;HC: healthy control;mono: disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug monotherapy;combination: combination therapy of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs;RBD: receptor binding domain;[Figure omitted. See PDF]Table 1.Demographic parameters and therapy of study participants.SARD (n=53)HC (n=73)Age, mean (standard deviation)53.55 (±14.04)51.27 (±14.07)Female45 (84.9%)47 (64.4%)Connective tissue disease42 (79%)Vasculitis11 (21%)csDMARD or b/tsDMARD monotherapy22 (41%)csDMARD and/or b/tsDMARD combination therapy13 (25%)No therapy18 (34%)Methotrexate8 (15%)Mycophenolate mofetil10 (19%)Hydroxychloroquine17 (32%)Azathioprine8 (15%)Belimumab3 (6%)Tocilizumab3 (6%)Glucocorticoid dose 1. vaccination, mean (standard deviation)2.8 (±10.8)Glucocorticoid dose 2. vaccination, mean (standard deviation)2.6 (±10.7)SARD: Systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease, HC: Healthy controls, csDMARD: conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs and b/tsDMARD: biological/ targeted drugs disease modifying antirheumatic drugsREFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsElisabeth Simader Speakers bureau: Lilly, Thomas Deimel: None declared, Felix Kartnig: None declared, Selma Tobudic: None declared, Helmuth Hasla her Grant/research support from: Glock Health, BlueSky Immunotherapies and Neutrolis, Thomas Maria Karonitsch: None declared, Daniel Mrak: None declared, Thomas Nothnagl: None declared, Thomas Perkmann: None declared, Helga Lechner-Radner: None declared, Judith Sautner: None declared, Florian Winkler: None declared, Heinz Burgmann Speakers bureau: speaker fees from Shionogi, Pfizer, MSD, Paid instructor for: advisory boards for Valneva, MSD, Gilead, Consultant of: consulting fees from MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, Gilead, Daniel Aletaha Speakers bureau: other from Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: grants from Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, SoBi, Sanofi, Stefan Winkler: None declared, Stephan Blüml Speakers bureau: personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Novartis, Peter Mandl Speakers bureau: reports speaker fees from AbbVie, Janssen and Novartis, Grant/research support from: research grants from AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, Janssen, MSD and UCB.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundAlthough many studies have been conducted on COVID-19 in recent years, there are still unanswered questions regarding breakthrough infections (BTIs), particularly in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).ObjectivesThis study aimed to determine the occurrence of breakthrough COVID-19 infections in patients with SLE versus other autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs), and healthy controls (HCs).MethodsThe study was based on data from the COVAD questionnaire which amassed a total of 10,783 complete responses from patients with SLE, AIRD, or nrAIRD, and HCs. After exclusion of individuals who were unvaccinated, those who received one vaccine dose only, and those with uncertain responses regarding the vaccine doses, a total of 9,595 patients formed the study population of the present investigation. If a COVID-19 infection occurred after the initial two vaccine doses and at least one booster dose (at least three doses in total, herein termed full vaccination), it was considered a BTI. Data were analysed using multivariable regression models. Statistically significant results were denoted by p values <0.05.ResultsA total of 7,016/9,595 (73.1%) individuals were fully vaccinated. Among those, 1,002 (14.2%) reported at least one BTI, and 166 (2.3%) reported at least two BTIs. Among SLE patients, 867/1,218 (71.2%) were fully vaccinated. Among fully vaccinated SLE patients, 137 (15.8%) reported at least one BTI while 28 (3.2%) reported at least two BTIs. BTI frequencies in fully vaccinated SLE patients were comparable to those of other AIRDs (OR: 1.0;95% CI: 0.8–1.3;p=0.447) and nrAIDS (OR: 0.9;95% CI: 0.6–1.3;p=0.856) but higher compared with HCs (OR: 1.2;95% CI: 1.0–1.6;p=0.022).For SLE patients with three vaccine doses, 113/137 (82.5%) reported at least one BTI while the corresponding number for four vaccine doses was 24/137 (17.5%). Compared with HCs (OR: 10.6;95% CI: 1.2–93.0;p=0.032) and other AIRDs (OR: 3.5;95% CI: 1.08–11.5;p=0.036), SLE patients showed higher frequencies of hospitalisation.AID multimorbidity was associated with a 15-fold increased risk for a need of advanced treatment for COVID-19 (OR: 15.3;95% CI: 2.6–88.2;p=0.002).ConclusionCOVID-19 BTIs occurred in nearly 1 every 6th fully vaccinated patient with SLE, and 20% more frequently in this patient population compared with fully vaccinated HCs. Moreover, BTIs in SLE patients were more severe compared with BTIs in HCs or patients with AIRDs other than SLE, resulting in a greater need for hospitalisation. AID multimorbidity contributed to a more severe COVID-19 BTI requiring advanced management. These insights call for greater attention to vaccination in the vulnerable group of SLE patients, with appropriate risk stratification towards optimised vaccination strategies.Figure 1.Survival analysis across patients with SLE, AIRDs, or nrAIDs, and HCs. SLE: systemic lupus erythematosus;AIRD: autoimmune rheumatic disease;nrAID: non-rheumatic autoimmune disease;HC: healthy control.[Figure omitted. See PDF]AcknowledgementsThe authors thank all survey respondents, as well as patient associations and all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the data collection.Disclosure of InterestsEmelie Kihlgren Olsson: None declared, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, and Lilly., Consultant of: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, and Lilly., Grant/research support from: EN holds research grants from Pfizer and Lilly., Julius Lindblom: None declared, Sreoshy Saha: None declared, Syahrul Sazliyana Shaharir: None declared, Wanruchada Katchamart: None declared, Phonpen Akarawatcharangura Goo: None declared, Lisa Traboco: None declared, Yi-Ming Chen: None declared, Kshitij Jagtap: None declared, James B. Lilleker Speakers bureau:
ABSTRACT
BackgroundPatients with rheumatic diseases may present more severe SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to the general population. However, in some studies, hospitalization and mortality due COVID-19 were lower in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) compared to other rheumatic diseases.ObjectivesTo assess the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with axSpA from the SAR-COVID registry, comparing them with patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to determine the factors associated with poor outcomes and death.MethodsPatients ≥18 years old from the SAR-COVID national registry with diagnosis of AxSpA (ASAS criteria 2009) and RA (ACR/EULAR criteria 2010) who had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (RT-PCR or positive serology), recruited from August 2020 to June 2022 were included. Sociodemographic and clinical data, comorbidities, treatments and outcomes of the infection were collected. Infection severity was assessed using the WHO-ordinal scale (WHO-OS)[1]: ambulatory [1], mild hospitalizations (2.3 y 4), severe hospitalizations (5.6 y 7) and death [8].Statistical analysisDescriptive statistics. Chi[2] or Fischer test and Student T or Mann-Whitney as appropriate. Poisson generalized linear model.ResultsA total of 1226 patients were included, 59 (4.8%) with axSpA and 1167 (95.2%) with RA. RA patients were significantly older, more frequently female, and had a longer disease duration. More than a third of the patients were in remission. 43.9 % presented comorbidities, arterial hypertension being the most frequent. At the time of SARS-Cov-2 diagnosis, patients with RA used glucocorticoids and conventional DMARDs more frequently than those with axSpA, while 74.6% of the latter were under treatment with biological DMARDs being anti-TNF the most used (61%).94.9 % of the patients in both groups reported symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although the differences were not significant, patients with RA presented more frequently cough, dyspnea, and gastrointestinal symptoms, while those with axSpA reported more frequently odynophagia, anosmia, and dysgeusia. During the SARS-CoV-2 infection, 6.8% and 23.5% of the patients with axSpA and RA were hospitalized, respectively. All of the patients with axSpA were admitted to the general ward, while 26.6% of those with RA to intensive care units. No patient with axSpA had complications or severe COVID-19 (WHO-OS>=5) or died as a result of the infection while mortality in the RA group was 3.3% (Figure 1).In the multivariate analysis adjusted to poor prognosis factors, no association was found between the diagnosis of axSpA and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection assessed with the WHO-OS (OR -0.18, IC 95%(-0.38, 0.01, p=0.074).ConclusionPatients with EspAax did not present complications from SARS-CoV-2 infections and none of them died due COVID-19.Reference[1]World Health Organization coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Therapeutic Trial Synopsis Draft 2020.Figure 1.Outcomes and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with axSpA and RA.[Figure omitted. See PDF]Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsAndrea Bravo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Tatiana Barbich Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Carolina Isnardi Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretati n, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Gustavo Citera Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Emilce Edith Schneeberger Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Rosana Quintana Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Cecilia Pisoni Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Mariana Pera Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Edson Velozo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Dora Aida Pereira Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Paula Alba Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Juan A Albiero Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Jaime Villafañe Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Hernan Maldonado Ficco Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Veronica Sa io Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Santiago Eduardo Aguero Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Romina Rojas Tessel Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Maria Isabel Quaglia Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., María Soledad Gálvez Elkin Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access tothe information collected in the database., Gisela Paola Pendon Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Carolina Aeschlimann Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Gustavo Fabian Rodriguez Gil Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Malena Viola Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Cecilia Romeo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Carla Maldini Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Silvana Mariela Conti Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor re istry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Rosana Gallo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Leticia Ibañez Zurlo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Maria Natalia Tamborenea Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Susana Isabel Pineda Vidal Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Debora Guaglianone Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Jonatan Marcos Mareco Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Cecilia Goizueta Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Elisa Novatti Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Fernanda Guzzanti Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Gimena Gómez Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Karen Roberts Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of t em participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Guillermo Pons-Estel Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundBimekizumab (BKZ), a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17F in addition to IL-17A, met all primary/secondary endpoints at Week (Wk) 16 in patients (pts) with active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) and radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA;i.e., ankylosing spondylitis), in the parallel phase 3 BE MOBILE 1 and 2 studies, respectively.[1,2]ObjectivesTo assess efficacy and safety of BKZ in these pts up to Wk 52.MethodsBE MOBILE 1 (NCT03928704) and 2 (NCT03928743) both involved a 16-wk placebo (PBO)-controlled and 36-wk maintenance period.[1,2] Pts were randomised to subcutaneous BKZ 160 mg Q4W (BKZ) or to PBO then BKZ from Wk 16 (PBO/BKZ).Results220/254 (86.6%) randomised pts with nr-axSpA and 298/332 (89.8%) with r-axSpA completed Wk 52. Efficacy was sustained to Wk 52 in both studies (Table 1). ASAS40 responses in BKZ-randomised pts increased from Wk 16 (nr-axSpA: 47.7%;r-axSpA: 44.8%;non-responder imputation [NRI]) to Wk 52 (60.9%;58.4%;NRI) with high levels of efficacy across TNFi-naïve and TNFi-IR populations (Table 1). At Wk 52, ASDAS <2.1 was achieved by 61.6% and 57.1%, and ASDAS <1.3 by 25.2% and 23.4%, of BKZ-randomised pts with nr-axSpA and r-axSpA, respectively (Figure 1). Wk 16 reductions from baseline in objective signs of inflammation (MRI, hs-CRP), and improvements in function (BASFI) and ASQoL, were maintained through 52 wks. Efficacy at Wk 52 was similar in PBO/BKZ-treated and BKZ-randomised pts (Table 1).At Wk 52, 75.0% (183/244) of pts with nr-axSpA and 75.5% (249/330) of pts with r-axSpA had ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) on BKZ;the most frequent (% pts) TEAEs by preferred term (MedDRA v19.0) were nasopharyngitis (nr-axSpa: 12.3%;r-axSpA 9.1%) and upper respiratory tract infection (9.4%;6.4%);few COVID-19 infections were reported (7.0%;2.1%). Incidence (pts/100 pt years) of serious TEAEs were low (4.4;7.1);no major adverse cardiovascular events, active tuberculosis cases, serious COVID-19 infections, or deaths were reported. Most incidences of fungal infection (19.6;14.9;none serious or systemic) were Candida (12.8;8.3) and mild to moderate;two pts in both studies discontinued the study due to Candida infections. Incidence of IBD (1.0;1.0) and uveitis (1.5;2.4) were low.ConclusionAcross the axSpA spectrum, BKZ resulted in sustained efficacy to Wk 52. No new safety signals were observed, consistent with the Wk 24 safety profile.[1,2]References[1]Deodhar A. Ann Rheum Dis 2022;81:772–3;2.[2]van der Heijde D. Ann Rheum Dis 2022;81:12–3.Table 1.Efficacy at Wk 52Mean (SE), unless statedBE MOBILE 1BE MOBILE 2PBO→BKZ N=126BKZ N=128PBO→BKZ N=111BKZ N=221ASAS40 [NRI] n (%)64 (50.8)78 (60.9)76 (68.5)129 (58.4)ASAS40 in TNFi-naïve [NRI] n (%)58 (53.2)a73 (61.9)b67 (71.3)c108 (58.7)dASAS40 in TNFi-IRe [NRI] n (%)6 (35.3)f5 (50.0)g9 (52.9)f21 (56.8)hASAS20 [NRI] n (%)88 (69.8)94 (73.4)89 (80.2)158 (71.5)ASAS PR [NRI] n (%)38 (30.2)38 (29.7)41 (36.9)66 (29.9)ASAS 5/6 [NRI] n (%)65 (51.6)71 (55.5)74 (66.7)124 (56.1)BASDAI CfB [MI]–3.5 (0.2)–3.9 (0.2)–4.0 (0.2)–3.6 (0.1)BASFI CfB [MI]–2.6 (0.2)–3.0 (0.2)–2.8 (0.2)–2.8 (0.1)ASDAS-MI [NRI] n (%)37 (29.4)47 (36.7)49 (44.1)71 (32.1)Nocturnal spinal pain CfB [MI]–4.1 (0.2)–4.3 (0.3)–4.6 (0.3)–4.1 (0.2)ASQoL CfB [MI]–5.3 (0.4)–5.9 (0.4)–5.6 (0.4)–5.7 (0.3)SF-36 PCS CfB [MI]11.4 (0.9)12.2 (0.9)12.3 (0.9)12.0 (0.6)BASMI CfB [MI]–0.4 (0.1)–0.6 (0.1)–0.7 (0.1)–0.7 (0.1)Total resolution of enthesitisi [NRI] n (%)41 (44.6)j51 (54.3)c31 (46.3)k67 (50.8)lASDAS-CRP CfB [MI]–1.6 (0.1)–1.8 (0.1)–1.9 (0.1)–1.7 (0.1)SPARCC MRI SIJ score CfB [OC]mMean (SD)–6.4 (10.7)n–7.6 (10.5)o–2.8 (6.1)p–4.7 (8.2)qBerlin MRI spine score CfB [OC]mMean (SD)–0.4 (2.0)k–0.7 (2.5)r–2.1 (3.4)p–2.4 (3.9)shs-CRP, mg/L [MI] Median2.21.72.02.3RS. n: a109, b118, c94, d184;eMax 1 TNFi;n: f17, g10, h37;iMASES=0 in pts with MASES >0 at BL;n: j92, k67;l132;mMRI sub-study;n: n70, o82, p48, q90, r79, s89.AcknowledgementsThis study was funded by UCB Ph rma. Medical writing support was provided by Costello Medical, funded by UCB Pharma.Disclosure of InterestsXenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Employee of: Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Marina Magrey Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and UCB Pharma, Walter P Maksymowych Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Pfizer;educational grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer for CARE ARTHRITIS, Tetsuya Tomita Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Novartis and Pfizer, Huji Xu Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Beigene, BioMap, IASO, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Employee of: Clinical investigator for Peking-Tsinghua Center for Life Sciences, Marga Oortgiesen Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Ute Massow Employee of: UCB Pharma, Carmen Fleurinck Employee of: UCB Pharma, Alicia Ellis Employee of: UCB Pharma, Thomas Vaux Employee of: UCB Pharma, julie smith Employee of: UCB Pharma, Alexander Marten Employee of: UCB Pharma, Lianne S. Gensler Consultant of: AbbVie, Acelyrin, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Novartis and UCB Pharma paid to institution.
ABSTRACT
Funding communities through mini-grant programs builds community capacity by fostering leadership among community members, developing expertise in implementing evidence-based practices, and increasing trust in partnerships. The South Carolina Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (SC-CPCRN) implemented the Community Health Intervention Program (CHIP) mini-grants initiative to address cancer-related health disparities among high-risk populations in rural areas of the state. One community-based organization and one faith-based organization were funded during the most recent call for proposals. The organizations implemented National Cancer Institute evidence-based strategies and programs focused on health and cancer screenings and physical activity and promotion of walking trails. Despite the potential for the COVID-19 pandemic to serve as a major barrier to implementation, grantees successfully recruited and engaged community members in evidence-based activities. These initiatives added material benefits to their local communities, including promotion of walking outdoors where it is less likely to contract the virus when socially distanced and provision of COVID-19 testing and vaccines along with other health and cancer screenings. Future mini-grants programs will benefit from learning from current grantees' flexibility in program implementation during a pandemic as well as their intentional approach to modifying program aspects as needed.
ABSTRACT
In January, a federal audit found that EcoHealth had misreported nearly $90,000 in expenses for several grants dating to 2014 and that NIH had erred by not justifying its termination (later changed to a suspension) of the 2019 grant. Three years after then-President Donald Trump pressured the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to shut down a research grant to a group studying how bat coronaviruses jump to people, the agency has restarted the award. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Science is the property of American Association for the Advancement of Science 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
Students who leave higher education before earning a credential ("stop outs") often do so for failing to maintain satisfactory academic progress, or SAP. This article details why enrollment managers must work with their financial aid counterparts to smooth students' re-entry to higher education, focusing on SAP alleviation strategies.
ABSTRACT
Single Audits Pre-COVID-19 The Single Audit Act requires that audits be performed annually, except for certain entities that have been grandfathered in for biennial audits, on behalf of all federal agencies by independent accounting firms or by individual states' internal auditors. Most of these awards were granted in 2021;however, this program was not included in the 2021 OMB Supplement. [...]auditors had to determine which compliance requirements needed to be tested using Part 7 and Part 3 of the supplement. Typically, the audit threshold for a single or program-specific audit of federal awards is based on expenditures. Because for-profit entities are not required to adhere to the audit requirements in 2 CFR Part 200, the SBA has the flexibility to define audit requirements and thresholds specific to the SVOG program. [...]the SBA has defined the audit threshold for a for-profit entity that has received an SVOG award based on the GAAP principle of revenue recognition, specifically applied to recognition of an SVOG award.
ABSTRACT
Democracy Worldwide v. United States No. 20-782C Filed: September 30, 2020· OPINION BLAKE, J. This case arises out of a grant awarded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to Democracy Worldwide (DW), as authorized by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, Pub. USAID sought applications for programs to increase protection for human rights defenders through various methods, including, but not limited to, strengthening civil society capacity to conduct civic education and activism, bolstering protections for journalists and human rights advocates, and conducting strategic civil and human rights-based litigation. [...]DW's Program Manager, Amanda McDowell, contacted Justin Baird, the Agreements Officer Representative (AOR) at USAID, to alert him that the training would need to make certain adjustments. The cheapest option per mask was a manufacturer that required a 500-mask minimum. Because the COVID-19 pandemic appeared that it would last beyond the first training, DW decided to order 500 masks.
ABSTRACT
Dep'ts and Agencies (Jan. 05, 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01 /M-21-11.pdf 226 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), USAID (Mar. 21, 2020), https:/ www.usaid.gov/coronavirus [http://web.archive.org /web/20200321032153] 217 U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-12-331G, Government Auditing Standards (2018) 218 OTHER AUTHORITIES Advice on the Use of Masks in the Community, During Home Care, and in Health Care Settings in the Context of COVID-19, WHO (Mar. 19, 2020), https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331493 /WHO-2019-nCoV-IPC_Masks-2020.2-eng.pdf?sequence= 14&isAllowed=y 218 Amindeh Blaise Atabong, In Cameroon, Face Masks Are Compulsory-But Unaffordable for Many, Mail & Guardian (Apr. 18, 2020), https:// mg.co.za/article/2020-04-18-in-cameroon-face-masks-are -compulsory-but-unaffordable-for-many 217, 218 Cost of Living in Yaounde, Numbeo, https://www.numbeo.com/cost -of-living/in/Yaounde-Cameroon (last visited Mar. 5, 2021) 218 Fadela Chaib, Shortage of Personal Protective Equipment Endangering Health Workers Worldwide, WHO (Mar. 02, 2020), https://www .who.int/news/item/03-03-2020-shortage-of-personal-protective -equipment-endangering-health-workers-worldwide 217 How COVID-19 Spreads, CDC (last updated Oct. 28, 2020), https:// www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how -COVID-spreads.html. 216 How Much Water Do You Use at Home?, U.S. Geological Surv. (last visited Mar. 5, 2021), https://water.usgs.gov/edu/activity -percapita.php 218 Scott S. Sheffler, A Reasoned Case for a "Grant Disputes Act," 47 Pub. L.J. 209 (2018) 207 STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES Pursuant to Rule 47.5 of the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice, Democracy Worldwide is unaware of another appeal in or from the same civil action or proceeding in the lower court or body that was previously before this Court or another appellate court. In November 2019, the Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance, which is part of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), published a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), announcing that USAID had $8,000,000 for human rights programming awards to increase protection for human rights defenders in Central Africa. Democracy Worldwide proposed a program to support human rights defenders in Cameroon by strengthening the normative frameworks and institutional architecture that would help Cameroon respect its human rights obligations and by building the capacity of civil society actors to promote those rights, monitor compliance, and demand accountability.
ABSTRACT
Like many services globally, the sudden work-from-home mandate due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 disrupted research at Canadian post-secondary and affiliated organizations. Research administration professionals, who are an integralpart of the research enterprise at these organizations, and who support and manage research activities were no exception and struggled to keep up with this challenging and unexpected situation. Not only adjusting in-house policies and procedures but research administrators were also swamped with distilling information received from externalfunders who were likewise adjusting their guidelines and policies for current and future funding programs. Moreover, the priority was to keep up with the COVID-19 special calls for funding that usually provided shorter response times. At the same time, research administrators were grappling with adapting to new online communication technology and finding the best ways to maintain work-life synergy. In this chaotic period of uncertainty, emotions were high, and communication was key. This study explores how research administration professionals in Canada adapted to this new reality and what lessons were learned. Through a national survey, the research administration community reflected on the following themes: i) Challenges experienced in setting up the new working environment;ii) Technostress;iii) Workload, productivity, and work-life balance;iv) Relationships among colleagues and with faculty, and v) Adaptability to the reality and future work culture desire. Results of the survey indicate that although Canadian research administration professionals experienced challenges due to abrupt shifts in their workplace, they were creative, resilient, and flexible enough to steer through this testing period. The inherent/acquired technological capabilities, efficient communications among coworkers and with faculty, and strategies they used during this time to stay productive and efficient helped most of them to adapt well to this situation. Some of them struggled to keep a work-life balance, especially those with young children, however, flexibility, control over their time, and proven productivity during this time inspired them to desire a remote and/or hybrid work culture even after the pandemic is over.
ABSTRACT
Whether the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ("Court of Federal Claims" or "lower court") has subject matter jurisdiction over appellant's claim for a right to cost reimbursement under a United States Agency for International Development ("USAID") grant award that did not contain a money-mandating provision and consideration. 2. [...]the Court of Federal Claims erroneously analogized the grant award to a traditional procurement contract. Because of this errant comparison, the lower court's analysis is flawed, and so, DW's claim falls outside the narrow grant of jurisdiction at the Court of Federal Claims. [...]this court should reverse the lower court's holding and dismiss DW's claim in its entirety. [...]because of the fixed-price nature of the grant, DW assumed the risk of incurring costs not included in its budget.
ABSTRACT
For many students, whether they want to admit it or not, school is a welcoming place. They get to see their friends, partake in extracurricular activities, step into leadership positions that build confidence and organizational skills, and support one another. They often even have fun. However, when the 2021-2022 school year began, the anxiety and loneliness that many students had felt while quarantined for the previous year and half followed them. Masks were still mandated, and the threat of catching COVID-19 had many students keeping their distance from others. Contact tracing had everyone in the building recounting where they'd been and with whom they had been in contact. Furthering the anxiety and isolation was the ban on clubs meeting in person, live theater and musical performances being relegated to streaming only, and cancellation of many traditional school events.
ABSTRACT
This dataset covers 2476-2479 Polish municipalities and cities (dependent on the year) over a period from 2004 when Poland joined the EU to the pre-COVID-19-pandemic 2019. The created 113 yearly panel variables include budgetary, electoral competitiveness, and European Union funded investment drive data. While the dataset has been created out of publicly available sources, their use requires advanced knowledge of budgetary data and their classification, as well as data gathering, merging, and clearing, which required many hours of work over a year. Fiscal variables were created out of raw data of over 25 million subcentral governments records. They were sourced from Rb27s (revenue), Rb28s (expenditure), RbNDS (balance), and RbZtd (debt) forms, which are reported quarterly by all subcentral governments to the Ministry of Finance. These data were aggregated according to the governmental budgetary classification keys into ready-to-use variables. Furthermore, these data were used to create original EU-financed local investment drives proxy variables based on large investments in general and in sports objects in particular. Moreover, subcentral electoral data from 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, and 2018 were sourced from the National Electoral Commission, mapped, cleared, merged, and used to create original electoral competitiveness variables. This dataset can be used to model different aspects of fiscal decentralization, political budget cycles, and EU-funded investment in a large sample of local government units.
ABSTRACT
The National Association of School Nurses (NASN) received a U.S.$2 million grant from Kaiser Permanente in January 2022 to increase confidence, equity, and uptake in the COVID-19 vaccine and other school required vaccinations in children ages 5 to 11 in Kaiser's nine markets (eight states and the District of Columbia). NASN was partnered with the Institute of Educational Leadership (IEL) in this initiative to examine ways both organizations could learn how school nurses (SNs) and community schools (CSs) could collaborate to address the goals of this project. NASN gave 54 Implementation Grants in two funding cycles in 2022 and is co-funding two SN-CS collaboration projects with IEL. The Part 1 article provides an overview of the project's goals, grant strategy and processes, grantee information, NASN created tools that resulted from this funding, and successful implementation of the project, which demonstrates NASN's capacity for future similar projects.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , School Nursing , Child , Humans , United States , Child, Preschool , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Societies, Nursing , VaccinationABSTRACT
The debate about the use of fiscal instruments for macroeconomic stabilization has regained prominence in the aftermath of the Great Recession, and its relevance has suddenly increased further, after the recent Covid-19 shock. The analysis of fiscal stabilization in the United States, a monetary union equipped with a common fiscal capacity, has often informed the literature on the European EMU and could serve as a reference for its possible future reforms. This paper expands that literature in three ways: first, by measuring stabilization not only as inter-state risk-sharing of asymmetric shocks, but also as intertemporal stabilization of common shocks;second, by doing this for specific items in the US federal budget, both on the revenue and on the expenditure side;and third, by also measuring the impact of the federal system of unemployment benefits and of its extension as a response to the Great Recession. Corporate and personal income tax, on the revenue side, and social security benefits and federal grants, on the spending side, are the most effective items. The US federal system of unemployment insurance provides great stabilization in the event of a large shock, in particular when enhanced by the discretionary program of extended benefits. These findings imply that a proper design of the budget can maximize its stabilization effect, when it helps bridging the gap between higher mobility of capital and lower mobility of labor, by collecting revenues based on the income of the most mobile factor (corporate income tax) and providing support to the income of the least mobile factor (social security).