SARS-CoV-2, vaccination or autoimmunity as causes of cardiac inflammation. Which form prevails?

The causes of cardiac inflammation during the COVID-19 pandemic are manifold and complex, and may have changed with different virus variants and vaccinations. The underlying viral etiology is self-evident, but its role in the pathogenic process is diverse. The view of many pathologists that myocyte necrosis and cellular infiltrates are indispensable for myocarditis does not suffice and contradicts the clinical criteria of myocarditis, i.e., a combination of serological evidence of necrosis based on troponins or MRI features of necrosis, edema, and inflammation based on prolonged T1 and T2 times and late gadolinium enhancement. The definition of myocarditis is still debated by pathologists and clinicians. We have learned that myocarditis and pericarditis can be induced by the virus via different pathways of action such as direct viral damage to the myocardium through the ACE2 receptor. Indirect damage occurs via immunological effector organs such as the innate immune system by macrophages and cytokines, and then later the acquired immune system via T cells, overactive proinflammatory cytokines, and cardiac autoantibodies. Cardiovascular diseases lead to more severe courses of SARS-CoV­2 disease. Thus, heart failure patients have a double risk for complicated courses and lethal outcome. So do patients with diabetes, hypertension, and renal insufficiency. Independent of the definition, myocarditis patients benefitted from intensive hospital care, ventilation, if needed, and cortisone treatment. Postvaccination myocarditis and pericarditis affect primarily young male patients after the second RNA vaccine. Both are rare events but severe enough to deserve our full attention, because treatment according to current guidelines is available and necessary.

Is It Time for Ocrelizumab Extended Interval Dosing in Relapsing Remitting MS? Evidence from An Italian Multicenter Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

In the COVID-19 pandemic era, safety concerns have been raised regarding the risk of severe infection following administration of ocrelizumab (OCR), a B-cell-depleting therapy. We enrolled all relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients who received maintenance doses of OCR from January 2020 to June 2021. Data were extracted in December 2021. Standard interval dosing (SID) was defined as a regular maintenance interval of OCR infusion every 6 months, whereas extended interval dosing (EID) was defined as an OCR infusion delay of at least 4 weeks. Three infusions were considered in defining SID vs. EID (infusions A, B, and C). Infusion A was the last infusion before January 2020. The primary study outcome was a comparison of disease activity during the A-C interval, which was defined as either clinical (new relapses) or radiological (new lesions on T1-gadolinium or T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences). Second, we aimed to assess confirmed disability progression (CDP). A total cohort of 278 patients (174 on SID and 104 on EID) was enrolled. Patients who received OCR on EID had a longer disease duration and a higher rate of vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (p < 0.05). EID was associated with an increased risk of MRI activity during the A-C interval (OR 5.373, 95% CI 1.203-24.001, p = 0.028). Being on SID or EID did not influence CDP (V-Cramer 0.47, p = 0.342). EID seemed to be associated with a higher risk of MRI activity in our cohort. EID needs to be carefully considered for OCR-treated patients.