COVID-19 Vaccination and Cardiopulmonary Events After Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial investigates the association of COVID-19 vaccination with incidence of cardiopulmonary events among patients who had experienced acute coronary syndromes.

The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines in the prevention of post-COVID conditions in children and adolescents: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Objective: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination against post-COVID conditions (long COVID) in the pediatric population. Design: Systematic literature review/meta-analysis. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, to August 14, 2023, for studies evaluating the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against post-COVID conditions among vaccinated individuals < 21 years old who received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine. A post-COVID condition was defined as any symptom that was present 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (95% CI) for post-COVID conditions between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Results: Eight studies with 23,995 individuals evaluated the effect of vaccination on post-COVID conditions, of which 5 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of children who did not receive COVID-19 vaccines ranged from 65% to 97%. The pooled prevalence of post-COVID conditions was 21.3% among those unvaccinated and 20.3% among those vaccinated at least once. The pooled DOR for post-COVID conditions among individuals vaccinated with at least 1 dose and those vaccinated with 2 doses were 1.07 (95% CI, 0.77-1.49) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.63-1.08), respectively. Conclusions: A significant proportion of children and adolescents were unvaccinated, and the prevalence of post-COVID conditions was higher than reported in adults. While vaccination did not appear protective, conclusions were limited by the lack of randomized trials and selection bias inherent in observational studies.

In-Hospital influenza vaccination to prevent cardiorespiratory events in the first 45 days after acute coronary syndrome: A prespecified analysis of the VIP-ACS trial.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination prevents major cardiovascular events in individuals presenting a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS), however the early effect of an in-hospital double-dose vaccination strategy remains uncertain. METHODS: The VIP-ACS was a randomized, pragmatic, multicenter, open-label trial with a blinded-adjudication endpoint. Patients with ACS ≤ 7 days of hospitalization were randomized to an in-hospital double-dose quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (double-dose) or a standard-dose influenza vaccine at 30 days post-randomization. The primary endpoint was a hierarchical composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for respiratory infections, analyzed with the win ratio (WR) method in short-term follow-up (45-days after randomization). RESULTS: The trial enrolled 1,801 patients (≥18 years old). Median participant age was 57 years, 70 % were male. There were no significant differences between groups on the primary hierarchical endpoint: there were 5.7 % wins in the double-dose in-hospital group and 5.5 % wins in the standard-dose delayed vaccination group (WR: 1.03; 95 % CI: 0.70---1.53; P = 0.85). In a sensitivity analysis including COVID-19 infection in the hospitalizations for respiratory infections endpoint, overall results were maintained (WR: 1.03; 95 % CI 0.71---1.51; P = 0.87). Results were consistent for major cardiovascular events only (WR: 0.82; 95 % CI: 0.48---1.39; P = 0.46). No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: In patients with recent ACS, in-hospital double-dose influenza vaccination did not significantly reduce cardiorespiratory events at 45 days compared with standard-dose vaccination at 30 days post-randomization.

Scientists of Tomorrow/ Cientistas do Amanhã : a project to inspire, stimulate scientific thinking, and introduce scientific methodology for young students.

The Scientists of Tomorrow/ Cientistas do Amanhã project is an immersive science training program developed by the Program of Post-Graduation in Health Sciences at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein. This program was conducted in partnership with Volunteering and Escola Municipal de Ensino Fundamental Professor Paulo Freire in Paraisópolis, São Paulo, Brazil. The Scientists of Tomorrow Program comprised a short training period conducted in May 2022 involving 37 students, and a long training period from August to December 2022, which included 15 students. It aimed to popularize science through practical activities; transfer knowledge to young students; sensitize and guide them to pursue academic-scientific careers; reduce stereotypes about scientific work and scientists; and help students understand the social, political, and ethical roles of science within society. All activities were led by postgraduate students and professors from our postgraduate program, physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, biomedicals, and veterinarians from Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, as well as medical students from Faculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein . Activities in the short training included lectures on cinema and science, strategies to combat fake news, non-violent communication, innovation, design-thinking framework, and developing a scientific project. During the long training period, discussions were focused on nanotechnology, animal research, big data, bioinformatics, meditation, blood and bone marrow donation, telemedicine, sex and sexually-transmitted infections, rehabilitation, career opportunities, and scientific integrity. In addition, practical activities were further expanded using optical and confocal microscopy, cytometry, and basic concepts regarding the structure and function of living cells. The program also included the launching of the open-air outreach Education E-natureza activity, which turned students into ambassadors of nature. In conclusion, the Scientists of Tomorrow Program was innovative and enabled young students to learn that science is a collective activity that can enhance public health. In Brief Rangel et al. enumerated the Scientists of Tomorrow/Cientistas do Amanhã program, an immersive science initiative conducted in collaboration with a public school. The program, which involved 15 students, aimed to promote science, share knowledge, inspire academic paths, and underscore societal impacts. Led by postgraduates, professors, and healthcare experts, the program included diverse lectures and practical laboratory activities. Highlights Every research endeavor commences with a fundamental question. Sharing of findings by researchers and students contributes toward the expansion of knowledge. Teaching scientific methodology is a pivotal step in nurturing critical thinking skills. Science permeates our daily lives and plays a crucial role in addressing societal issues.

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in the prevention of post-COVID conditions: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the latest research.

Objective: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination against post-COVID conditions (long COVID) among fully vaccinated individuals. Design: Systematic literature review/meta-analysis. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, to June 2, 2023, for studies evaluating the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against post-COVID conditions among fully vaccinated individuals who received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine. A post-COVID condition was defined as any symptom that was present four or more weeks after COVID-19 infection. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (95% confidence interval) for post-COVID conditions between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1-DOR). Results: Thirty-two studies with 775,931 individuals evaluated the effect of vaccination on post-COVID conditions, of which, twenty-four studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for post-COVID conditions among fully vaccinated individuals was 0.680 (95% CI: 0.523-0.885) with an estimated VE of 32.0% (11.5%-47.7%). Vaccine effectiveness was 36.9% (23.1%-48.2%) among those who received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine before COVID-19 infection and 68.7% (64.7%-72.2%) among those who received three doses before COVID-19 infection. The stratified analysis demonstrated no protection against post-COVID conditions among those who received COVID-19 vaccination after COVID-19 infection. Conclusions: Receiving a complete COVID-19 vaccination prior to contracting the virus resulted in a significant reduction in post-COVID conditions throughout the study period, including during the Omicron era. Vaccine effectiveness demonstrated an increase when supplementary doses were administered.

Longer-term effectiveness of a heterologous coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine booster in healthcare workers in Brazil.

Objective: To compare the long-term vaccine effectiveness between those receiving viral vector [Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1)] or inactivated viral (CoronaVac) primary series (2 doses) and those who received an mRNA booster (Pfizer/BioNTech) (the third dose) among healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) in Brazil from January 2021 to July 2022. To assess the variation in the effectiveness of booster dose over time, we estimated the effectiveness rate by taking the log risk ratio as a function of time. Results: Of 14,532 HCWs, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was confirmed in 56.3% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 23.2% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001), and 37.1% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 22.7% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). The highest vaccine effectiveness with mRNA booster was observed 30 days after vaccination: 91% for the CoronaVac vaccine group and 97% for the ChAdOx1 vaccine group. Vacine effectiveness declined to 55% and 67%, respectively, at 180 days. Of 430 samples screened for mutations, 49.5% were SARS-CoV-2 delta variants and 34.2% were SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants. Conclusions: Heterologous COVID-19 vaccines were effective for up to 180 days in preventing COVID-19 in the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variant eras, which suggests the need for a second booster.

Inflammatory profile of keratoconic corneal epithelium.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have presented inflammatory features on keratoconus (KC) and many inflammatory markers are described in the tears of patients with this disease. The KC pathogenesis is still unknown just like the correlation with inflammatory patterns. However, environmental and genetic issues may be part of the progress of KC. In addition, some systemic features, such as allergy and obesity, seem to be related to the progression of KC. Our purpose was to evaluate the neuropeptides vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP), neuropeptide Y (NPY), chemokines ligand 2 (CCL-2) and 5 (CCL-5), and interleukins 6 (IL-6) and 8 (IL-8) on corneal epithelial cells and blood of patients with KC and in healthy controls. In addition, the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was evaluated to predict inflammation. METHODS: This including prospective observational study included 32 KC patients who underwent corneal crosslinking (CXL) and 32 control patients who underwent photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Patients' corneal epithelial cells were removed surgically, and blood (buffy coat) was analyzed. Samples in triplicate were evaluated on rt-PCR for neuropeptides (VIP e NPY), interleukins (IL-6 e IL-8), and chemokines (CCL-2 and CCL-5). RESULTS: Our study showed statistically higher CCL-5 and IL-8 on corneal epithelial cells in patients with KC. Blood cells were statistically higher in VIP and NPY in the KC group. Interleukin-8 on blood cells was statistically significant in KC'S group; for CCL-2 and CCL-5 they were statistically lower in patients with KC compared with controls. NLR showed no difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the findings of other studies that suggested altering KC status, such as inflammatory corneal disease. The presence of IL-8 in the cornea and blood samples of KC's group suggested systemic disease with a possible local or repercussion action. Further studies are warranted to elucidate KC pathogenesis and its correlation to systemic disease.

Risk factors for long coronavirus disease 2019 (long COVID) among healthcare personnel, Brazil, 2020-2022.

OBJECTIVE: To determine risk factors for the development of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare personnel (HCP). METHODS: We conducted a case-control study among HCP who had confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 working in a Brazilian healthcare system between March 1, 2020, and July 15, 2022. Cases were defined as those having long COVID according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Controls were defined as HCP who had documented COVID-19 but did not develop long COVID. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between exposure variables and long COVID during 180 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 7,051 HCP diagnosed with COVID-19, 1,933 (27.4%) who developed long COVID were compared to 5,118 (72.6%) who did not. The majority of those with long COVID (51.8%) had 3 or more symptoms. Factors associated with the development of long COVID were female sex (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.39), age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), and 2 or more SARS-CoV-2 infections (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.50). Those infected with the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.50) or the SARS-CoV-2 o (omicron) variant (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.78), and those receiving 4 COVID-19 vaccine doses prior to infection (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.19) were significantly less likely to develop long COVID. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID can be prevalent among HCP. Acquiring >1 SARS-CoV-2 infection was a major risk factor for long COVID, while maintenance of immunity via vaccination was highly protective.

Effectiveness of two coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines (viral vector and inactivated viral vaccine) against severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in a cohort of healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated real-world vaccine effectiveness for Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and CoronaVac against laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil between January 1, 2021 and August 3, 2021, to assess vaccine effectiveness. We calculated vaccine effectiveness as 1 - rate ratio (RR), with RR determined by adjusting Poisson models with the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection as the outcome and the vaccination status as the main variable. We used the logarithmic link function and simple models adjusting for sex, age, and job types. RESULTS: In total, 13,813 HCWs met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. Among them, 6,385 (46.2%) received the CoronaVac vaccine, 5,916 (42.8%) received the ChAdOx1 vaccine, and 1,512 (11.0%) were not vaccinated. Overall, COVID-19 occurred in 6% of unvaccinated HCWs, 3% of HCWs who received 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine, and 0.7% of HCWs who received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness rates were 51.3% for CoronaVac, and 88.1% for ChAdOx1 vaccine. Both vaccines reduced the number of hospitalizations, the length of hospital stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation. In addition, 19 SARS-CoV-2 samples from 19 HCWs were screened for mutations of interest. Of 19 samples, 18 were the γ (gamma) variant. CONCLUSIONS: Although both COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated virus) can significantly prevent COVID-19 among HCWs, CoronaVac was much less effective. The COVID-19 vaccines were also effective against the dominant γ variant.

Effectiveness of Heterologous Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Booster Dosing in Brazilian Healthcare Workers, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Little is currently known about vaccine effectiveness (VE) for either 2 doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) viral vector vaccine or CoronaVac (Instituto Butantan) inactivated viral vaccine followed by a third dose of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil from January to December 2021. VE was defined as 1 - incidence rate ratio (IRR), with IRR determined using Poisson models with the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection as the outcome, adjusting for age, sex, and job type. We compared those receiving viral vector or inactivated viral primary series (2 doses) with those who received an mRNA booster. RESULTS: A total of 11 427 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. COVID-19 was confirmed in 31.5% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 0.9% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001) and 9.8% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 1% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 92.0% for 2 CoronaVac vaccines plus mRNA booster and 60.2% for 2 ChAdOx1 vaccines plus mRNA booster, when compared with those with no mRNA booster. Of 246 samples screened for mutations, 191 (77.6%) were Delta variants. CONCLUSIONS: While 2 doses of ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac vaccines prevent COVID-19, the addition of a Pfizer/BioNTech booster provided significantly more protection.

Scientists of Tomorrow/ Cientistas do Amanhã : a project to inspire, stimulate scientific thinking, and introduce scientific methodology for young students

ABSTRACT The Scientists of Tomorrow/ Cientistas do Amanhã project is an immersive science training program developed by the Program of Post-Graduation in Health Sciences at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein. This program was conducted in partnership with Volunteering and Escola Municipal de Ensino Fundamental Professor Paulo Freire in Paraisópolis, São Paulo, Brazil. The Scientists of Tomorrow Program comprised a short training period conducted in May 2022 involving 37 students, and a long training period from August to December 2022, which included 15 students. It aimed to popularize science through practical activities; transfer knowledge to young students; sensitize and guide them to pursue academic-scientific careers; reduce stereotypes about scientific work and scientists; and help students understand the social, political, and ethical roles of science within society. All activities were led by postgraduate students and professors from our postgraduate program, physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, biomedicals, and veterinarians from Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, as well as medical students from Faculdade Israelita de Ciências da Saúde Albert Einstein . Activities in the short training included lectures on cinema and science, strategies to combat fake news, non-violent communication, innovation, design-thinking framework, and developing a scientific project. During the long training period, discussions were focused on nanotechnology, animal research, big data, bioinformatics, meditation, blood and bone marrow donation, telemedicine, sex and sexually-transmitted infections, rehabilitation, career opportunities, and scientific integrity. In addition, practical activities were further expanded using optical and confocal microscopy, cytometry, and basic concepts regarding the structure and function of living cells. The program also included the launching of the open-air outreach Education E-natureza activity, which turned students into ambassadors of nature. In conclusion, the Scientists of Tomorrow Program was innovative and enabled young students to learn that science is a collective activity that can enhance public health.

Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (January 2019 to March 2021) for patients aged 18 years or older, who had COVID-19 and were treated with hydroxychloroquine versus placebo or standard of care. We also searched the WHO Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing and recently completed studies, and the reference lists of selected articles and reviews for possible relevant studies, with no restrictions regarding language or publication status. Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled mean differences of treatment effect on mortality, and serious adverse effects between hydroxychloroquine and the Control Group (standard of care or placebo); heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and the Cochran´s Q statistic. RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in mortality rate between patients treated with hydroxychloroquine compared to standard of care or placebo (16.7% versus 18.5%; pooled risk ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.19). Also, the rate of serious adverse effects was similar between both Groups, Hydroxychloroquine and Control (3.7% versus 2.9%; pooled risk ratio 1.22; 95% confidence interval: 0.76-1.96). CONCLUSION: Hydroxychloroquine is not efficacious in reducing mortality of COVID-19 patients. PROSPERO DATABASE REGISTRATION: (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) under number CRD42020197070.

The effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine in the prevention of post-COVID-19 conditions: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Background: Although multiple studies have revealed that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines can reduce COVID-19-related outcomes, little is known about their impact on post-COVID-19 conditions. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against post-COVID-19 conditions (ie, long COVID). Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, to April 27, 2022, for studies evaluating COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against post-COVID-19 conditions among individuals who received at least 1 dose of Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, or Janssen vaccine. A post-COVID-19 condition was defined as any symptom that was present 3 or more weeks after having COVID-19. Editorials, commentaries, reviews, study protocols, and studies in the pediatric population were excluded. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) for post-COVID-19 conditions between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 - DOR). Results: In total, 10 studies with 1,600,830 individuals evaluated the effect of vaccination on post-COVID-19 conditions, of which 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for post-COVID-19 conditions among individuals vaccinated with at least 1 dose was 0.708 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.692-0.725) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 29.2% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.8%). The vaccine effectiveness was 35.3% (95% CI, 32.3%-38.1%) among those who received the COVID-19 vaccine before having COVID-19, and 27.4% (95% CI, 25.4%-29.3%) among those who received it after having COVID-19. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination both before and after having COVID-19 significantly decreased post-COVID-19 conditions for the circulating variants during the study period although vaccine effectiveness was low.

The long-term effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Background: Although multiple studies revealed high vaccine effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines within 3 months after the completion of vaccines, long-term vaccine effectiveness has not been well established, especially after the δ (delta) variant became prominent. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of long-term vaccine effectiveness. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 2019 to November 15, 2021, for studies evaluating the long-term vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19 hospitalization among individuals who received 2 doses of Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccines, or 1 dose of the Janssen vaccine. Long-term was defined as >5 months after the last dose. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% confidence interval for COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 - DOR). Results: In total, 16 studies including 17,939,172 individuals evaluated long-term vaccine effectiveness and were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for COVID-19 was 0.158 (95% CI: 0.157-0.160) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 84.2% (95% CI, 84.0- 84.3%). Estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization was 88.7% (95% CI, 55.8%-97.1%). Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 during the δ variant period was 61.2% (95% CI, 59.0%-63.3%). Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19 and COVID-19 hospitalization across a long-term period for the circulating variants during the study period. More observational studies are needed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness of third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, the vaccine effectiveness of mixing COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 breakthrough infection, and vaccine effectiveness against newly emerging variants.

Biologic Agents in Crohn's Patients Reduce CD4+ T Cells Activation and Are Inversely Related to Treg Cells.

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disease with a complex interface of broad factors. There are two main treatments for Chron's disease: biological therapy and nonbiological therapy. Biological agent therapy (e.g., anti-TNF) is the most frequently prescribed treatment; however, it is not universally accessible. In fact, in Brazil, many patients are only given the option of receiving nonbiological therapy. This approach prolongs the subsequent clinical relapse; however, this procedure could be implicated in the immune response and enhance disease severity. Our purpose was to assess the effects of different treatments on CD4+ T cells in a cohort of patients with Crohn's disease compared with healthy individuals. To examine the immune status in a Brazilian cohort, we analyzed CD4+ T cells, activation status, cytokine production, and Treg cells in blood of Crohn's patients. Patients that underwent biological therapy can recover the percentage of CD4+CD73+ T cells, decrease the CD4+ T cell activation/effector functions, and maintain the peripheral percentage of regulatory T cells. These results show that anti-TNF agents can improve CD4+ T cell subsets, thereby inducing Crohn's patients to relapse and remission rates.

Influenza vaccination strategy in acute coronary syndromes: the VIP-ACS trial.

AIMS: To evaluate whether a strategy of double-dose influenza vaccination during hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared with standard-dose outpatient vaccination (as recommended by current guidelines) would further reduce the risk of major cardiopulmonary events. METHODS AND RESULTS: Vaccination against Influenza to Prevent cardiovascular events after Acute Coronary Syndromes (VIP-ACS) was a pragmatic, randomized, multicentre, active-comparator, open-label trial with blinded outcome adjudication comparing two strategies of influenza vaccination following an ACS: double-dose quadrivalent inactivated vaccine before hospital discharge vs. standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated vaccine administered in the outpatient setting 30 days after randomization. The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for respiratory causes, analysed by the win ratio method. Patients were followed for 12 months. During two influenza seasons, 1801 participants were included at 25 centres in Brazil. The primary outcome was not different between groups, with 12.7% wins in-hospital double-dose vaccine group and 12.3% wins in the standard-dose vaccine group {win ratio: 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79-1.32], P = 0.84}. Results were consistent for the key secondary outcome, a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke [win ratio: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.66-1.33), P = 0.72]. Time-to-first event analysis for the primary outcome showed results similar to those of the main analysis [hazard ratio 0.97 (95% CI: 0.75-1.24), P = 0.79]. Adverse events were infrequent and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized with an ACS, double-dose influenza vaccination before discharge did not reduce cardiopulmonary outcomes compared with standard-dose vaccination in the outpatient setting. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04001504.

Treatment of severe COVID-19 patients with either low- or high-volume of convalescent plasma versus standard of care: A multicenter Bayesian randomized open-label clinical trial (COOP-COVID-19-MCTI).

Background: Administration of convalescent plasma may serve as an adjunct to supportive treatment to prevent COVID-19 progression and death. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2 volumes of intravenous convalescent plasma (CP) with high antibody titers for the treatment of severe cases of COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a Bayesian, randomized, open-label, multicenter, controlled clinical trial in 7 Brazilian hospitals. Adults admitted to hospital with positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV2, within 10 days of the symptom onset, were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive standard of care (SoC) alone, or in combination with 200 mL (150-300 mL) of CP (Low-volume), or 400 mL (300-600 mL) of CP (High-volume); infusion had to be performed within 24 h of randomization. Randomization was centralized, stratified by center. The primary outcome was the time until clinical improvement up to day 28, measured by the WHO ten-point scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Interim and terminal analyses were performed in a Bayesian framework. Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04415086. Findings: Between June 2, 2020, and November 18, 2020, 129 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to SoC (n = 42), Low-volume (n = 43) or High-volume (n = 44) CP. Donors presented a median titer of neutralizing antibodies of 1:320 (interquartile range, 1:160 to 1:1088). No evidence of any benefit of convalescent plasma was observed, with Bayesian estimate of 28-day clinical improvement of 72.7% (95%CI, 58.8 to 84.7) in the SoC versus 64.1% (95%ci, 53.8 to 73.7) in the pooled experimental groups (mean difference of -8.7%, 95%CI, -24.6 to 8.2). There was one case of cutaneous mild allergic reaction related to plasma transfusion and one case of suspected transfusion-related acute lung injury but deemed not to be related to convalescent plasma infusion. Interpretation: In this prospective, randomized trial of adult hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, convalescent plasma was not associated with clinical benefits. Funding: Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo.

Short-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the short-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among immunocompromised patients to prevent laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio [DOR] (95% CI) for COVID-19 infection between immunocompromised patients and healthy people or those with stable chronic medical conditions. VE was estimated as 100% x (1-DOR). We also investigated the rates of developing anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Twenty studies evaluating COVID-19 vaccine response, and four studies evaluating VE were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for symptomatic COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised patients was 0.296 (95% CI: 0.108-0.811) with an estimated VE of 70.4% (95% CI: 18.9%- 89.2%). When stratified by diagnosis, IgG antibody levels were much higher in the control group compared to immunocompromised patients with solid organ transplant (pOR 232.3; 95% Cl: 66.98-806.03), malignant diseases (pOR 42.0, 95% Cl: 11.68-151.03), and inflammatory rheumatic diseases (pOR 19.06; 95% Cl: 5.00-72.62). CONCLUSIONS: We found COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were effective against symptomatic COVID-19 among the immunocompromised patients but had lower VE compared to the controls. Further research is needed to understand the discordance between antibody production and protection against symptomatic COVID-19 infection.

Ocular Disease in Mice Inoculated with Pork Heart Samples Infected with Toxoplasma gondii.

PURPOSE: We analyzed the frequency, viability, and genetic characteristics of T. gondii in pork heart samples. METHODS: Thirty-five fresh pork samples were purchased in a slaughterhouse in Erechim city. The DNA was extracted and qPCR was performed. T. gondii genotyping was performed using PCR-RFLP analysis. Positive samples were digested and inoculated in mice for viability analysis. RESULTS: Our results showed that T. gondii DNA was detected in 25.7% of the pork heart samples and genotyping revealed one new atypical strain. The viability analyses demonstrated that 40% of mice presented clinical signs of T. gondii infection. qPCR was positive in the lung, liver, and brain of mice that presented clinical signs of T. gondii infection. Also, the histopathology analysis showed retinal disorganization, retinal detachment, inflammatory cell infiltration, and fibrosis in the eyes analyzed. CONCLUSION: Our findings have shown that pork eat from southern Brazil may contain live T. gondii that could be associated with toxoplasmosis.

Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

ABSTRACT Objective We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients. Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (January 2019 to March 2021) for patients aged 18 years or older, who had COVID-19 and were treated with hydroxychloroquine versus placebo or standard of care. We also searched the WHO Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing and recently completed studies, and the reference lists of selected articles and reviews for possible relevant studies, with no restrictions regarding language or publication status. Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled mean differences of treatment effect on mortality, and serious adverse effects between hydroxychloroquine and the Control Group (standard of care or placebo); heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and the Cochran´s Q statistic. Results Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in mortality rate between patients treated with hydroxychloroquine compared to standard of care or placebo (16.7% versus 18.5%; pooled risk ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.19). Also, the rate of serious adverse effects was similar between both Groups, Hydroxychloroquine and Control (3.7% versus 2.9%; pooled risk ratio 1.22; 95% confidence interval: 0.76-1.96). Conclusion Hydroxychloroquine is not efficacious in reducing mortality of COVID-19 patients. Prospero database registration (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) under number CRD42020197070.