ABSTRACT
Spinal cord compression is a neurosurgical emergency. Symptoms of this disorder are highlighted as back pain, ambulatory difficulties, and bladder/bowel incontinence. Diagnostic imaging is not indicated in many circumstances of nonspecific back pain; however, the addition of neurologic deficits in the setting of back pain justifies radiologic imaging. Various pathologies can cause constriction of the spinal cord due to the delicate nature of spinal cord anatomy. Etiologies may include trauma, neoplasms, and infections. In this report, we present an unusual case of a 31-year-old male who presented to the emergency department with a history of chronic back pain accompanied by neurological deficits, ataxia, and bladder dysfunction. Contrast-enhanced MRI imaging heightened the suspicion of a neoplastic etiology; however, neuropathology revealed a non-neoplastic nature with abnormal lymphohistiocytic infiltrate suspicious for Langerhans cell histiocytosis or infectious etiology. A second opinion was provided by Mayo Clinic Laboratories, resulting in the definitive conclusion that the mass was non-neoplastic and tested negative for SD1a and Langerhin, biomarkers used to diagnose Langerhans cell histiocytosis. This unusual non-neoplastic lesion exemplifies one of many diverse and multifaceted pathologies that can precipitate spinal cord compression. Additionally, these findings underscore the importance of considering both neoplastic and non-neoplastic causes in the differential diagnosis of spinal cord compression, thereby enhancing clinical vigilance and improving patient outcomes for underlying spinal conditions.
ABSTRACT
The wildfire-like spread of COVID-19, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus-2, has resulted in a pandemic that has put unprecedented stress on the world's healthcare systems and caused varying severities of socio-economic damage. As there are no specific treatments to combat the virus, current approaches to overcome the crisis have mainly revolved around vaccination efforts, preventing human-to-human transmission through enforcement of lockdowns and repurposing of drugs. To efficiently facilitate the measures implemented by governments, rapid and accurate diagnosis of the disease is vital. Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and computed tomography have been the standard procedures to diagnose and evaluate COVID-19. However, disadvantages, including the necessity of specialized equipment and trained personnel, the high financial cost of operation and the emergence of false negatives, have hindered their application in high-demand and resource-limited sites. Nanoparticle-based methods of diagnosis have been previously reported to provide precise results within short periods of time. Such methods have been studied in previous outbreaks of coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus and middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Given the need for rapid diagnostic techniques, this review discusses nanoparticle use in detecting the aforementioned coronaviruses and the recent severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus-2 to highlight approaches that could potentially be used during the COVID-19 pandemic.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Few data exist regarding the immunogenicity of the third dose of BNT162b2 relative to the second dose in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on different immunosuppressive therapies. We investigated the immunogenicity of BNT162b2 vaccine booster dose in patients with IBD on infliximab combination therapy. Method: This is a prospective single-center observational study conducted from January 1, 2022 to February 28, 2022. Patients were recruited at the time of attendance at the infusion center. Eligibility criteria included patients with a confirmed diagnosis of IBD who are receiving infliximab with azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine. Patients who received two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine (second dose group) were compared to patients who had received three doses of BNT162b2 vaccine [third dose (booster) group]. Patients were excluded if they were infected or had symptoms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) previously since the start of the pandemic or received other vaccines than the BNT162b2. Our primary outcome was the concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies Immunoglobulin G (IgG) and neutralizing antibodies 40-45 weeks from the first dose of BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with IBD receiving infliximab combination therapy. Medians with interquartile range (IQR) were calculated. Results: In total, 162 patients with IBD and receiving infliximab combination therapy were recruited, and the number of patients in both the second dose group and third dose (booster) group was 81. Mean age was 35 years old in both groups. Median (IQR) SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels were significantly lower after the second dose [125 BAU/ml (43, 192)] compared to patients who received the third booster dose [207 BAU/ml (181, 234)] (P = 0.003). Neutralizing antibody levels were also lower after the second dose [80% (21, 95)] compared to patients who received the third booster dose [96% (93, 99)] (P ≤ 0.001). The percentage of patients who achieved positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels in the third (booster) dose group was 96.3%, whereas it was 86.4% in the second dose group. The percentage of participants who received the third (booster) dose and achieved a positive SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibody level was 100%, whereas it was 88.9% in the participants who received the second dose only. Conclusion: Most patients with IBD on infliximab combination therapy had positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG and neutralizing antibody concentrations 40-45 weeks post BNT162b2 vaccination. However, SARS-CoV-2 IgG and neutralizing antibody concentrations were lower in patients who received two doses only compared to patients who received a third dose. A longer follow-up study is needed to evaluate decay in antibodies over time.
ABSTRACT
Background: The impact of biologic therapies on body mass index (BMI) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is unclear. This study investigates any associations between BMI, type of IBD, and the type of medications taken among patients with IBD with varying weight categories. Methods: A cross sectional study was performed in an IBD tertiary care center. Data was obtained from patients with IBD attending outpatient clinics from January 1st, 2021 until November 1st, 2021. Adult patients, older than 18 years, with a diagnosis of Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) were recruited. The primary outcome was the association between BMI and medication used in IBD. The secondary outcome was the association between BMI and disease type and location in patients with IBD. Results: The study included a total of 528 patients of which, 66.5% have CD. Patients with normal weight comprises 55.9% of the participants, while those who are underweight, overweight or obese are 3.4, 28.2, and 12.5%, respectively. None of the underweight patients had UC. Among the normal weight, overweight and obese BMI categories, 34.6% vs. 36.2% vs. 31.8% had UC, respectively. Patients who are on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (anti-TNF) with an immunomodulator (anti-TNF combination), are more likely to be overweight or obese than patients who are not on anti-TNF combination (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.739-4.711, p < 0.001). Patients on vedolizumab are twice as likely to be overweight or obese than patients not on vedolizumab (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.086-4.584, p < 0.05). Patients with ileocolonic CD are more likely to be overweight or obese compared to other subtypes of CD (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.14-2.77, p = 0.01). Conclusion: Many patients with IBD are either obese or overweight. Patients with IBD who are on anti-TNF combination therapy or vedolizumab monotherapy are more likely to be obese and overweight. In addition, patients will ileocolonic CD are more likely to be obese or overweight.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This paper investigates the relationship between the positivity rate and numbers of deaths and intensive care unit (ICU) patients. In addition, it explores the use of the positivity rate as an indicator for the spread of COVID-19. METHODS: We used COVID-19 datasets for eight countries - Canada, USA, UK, Italy, Belgium, Ireland, Colombia and South Africa - and considered two correlation cases. The first case considers the correlation of the number of confirmed cases with each of deaths and ICU patients. The second case considers the correlation of the positivity rate with each of deaths and ICU patients. When obtaining the correlation, we considered different lagging periods between the date of confirming a case and the date of its ICU admittance or death. We compared the obtained correlation coefficient values for each of the two considered cases to explore whether the positivity rate is a better indicator for the spread of the disease than confirmed cases. For each of the eight considered countries, we obtained the daily reproduction number using each of confirmed cases and positivity rate. The two obtained sets of reproduction number values for each country were statistically compared to investigate whether they are significantly different. RESULTS: When considering the daily positivity rate instead of the daily number of confirmed cases, the maximum correlation with deaths is increased by 349.9% for the USA (the country with the highest increase) and 4.5% for the UK (the country with the lowest increase), with an average increase of 60.8% considering the eight countries. Considering the daily positivity rate instead of the daily number of confirmed cases caused the maximum correlation with the number of ICU patients to be increased by 74.7% for the USA (the country with the highest increase) and 2.2% for the UK (the country with the lowest increase), with an average increase of 25% over the considered countries. The results for the daily reproduction number obtained using the positivity rate are statistically different from those obtained using daily confirmed cases. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that positivity rate is a better indicator for the spread of the disease than the number of confirmed cases. Therefore, it is highly advised to use measures based on the positivity rate when indicating the spread of the disease and considering responses accordingly because these measures consider the daily number of tests and confirmed cases.
