RESUMO
Since the beginning of the 2021 year, all the main six vaccines against COVID-19 have been used in mass vaccination companies around the world. Virus neutralization and epidemiological efficacy drop obtained for several vaccines against the B.1.1.7, B.1.351 P.1, and B.1.617 genotypes are of concern. There is a growing number of reports on mutations in receptor-binding domain (RBD) increasing the transmissibility of the virus and escaping the neutralizing effect of antibodies. The Sputnik V vaccine is currently approved for use in more than 66 countries but its activity against variants of concern (VOC) is not extensively studied yet. Virus-neutralizing activity (VNA) of sera obtained from people vaccinated with Sputnik V in relation to internationally relevant genetic lineages B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, B.1.617.2, B.1.617.3 and Moscow endemic variants B.1.1.141 (T385I) and B.1.1.317 (S477N, A522S) with mutations in the RBD domain has been assessed. The data obtained indicate no significant differences in VNA against B.1.1.7, B.1.617.3 and local genetic lineages B.1.1.141 (T385I), B.1.1.317 (S477N, A522S) with RBD mutations. For the B.1.351, P.1, and B.1.617.2 statistically significant 3.1-, 2.8-, and 2.5-fold, respectively, VNA reduction was observed. Notably, this decrease is lower than that reported in publications for other vaccines. However, a direct comparative study is necessary for a conclusion. Thus, sera from "Sputnik V"-vaccinated retain neutralizing activity against VOC B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, B.1.617.2, B.1.617.3 as well as local genetic lineages B.1.1.141 and B.1.1.317 circulating in Moscow.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The safety of blood component transfusions is still of concern and the use of pathogen reduction (PR) methods is increasing. Limited data are available describing safety and efficacy of PR platelet (PLT) transfusions in children. We report the results of a retrospective evaluation of prophylactic transfusions of PR PLT units treated with riboflavin and ultraviolet light in pediatric patients with malignant disorders. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 137 patients (PR, 51; control, 86) and 432 transfusions (PR, 141; control, 291) with mean age of 11 years were evaluated. The primary clinical efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with bleeding on any day of PLT support. Secondary endpoints included 1- and 24-hour PLT increments, corrected count increments (CCIs), and the number of days between PLT transfusions. Safety endpoints included number of posttransfusion adverse reactions. RESULTS: The incidence of bleeding events, severity, and localization of bleeding sites did not differ between the study groups. Posttransfusion PLT counts and 1- and 4-hour CCIs (12.25 ± 4.26 and 25.67 ± 7.11; p < 0.05; PR vs. control, respectively) and 18- to 24-hour CCIs (9.41 ± 6.42 and 12.47 ± 6.25; p < 0.05) after transfusions were significantly lower in the PR group. Transfusion-related adverse event rates did not differ between groups (8.3% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.73). CONCLUSION: In spite of lower numerical increase in PLT count, the hemostatic efficacy and safety of PR PLT transfusions was comparable with the control group. Adverse event rates did not differ between groups, but the sample size was relatively small.