Extracorporeal light-chain elimination in myeloma with simple medium cutoff membrane hemodialysis: a retrospective cohort study

Background We determined the efficacy of free light chain (FLC) removal by regular dialysis equipment (high-flux filtration) with medium cutoff (MCO) membrane hemodialysis (HD) as an adjuvant treatment to standard chemotherapy for patients with acute kidney injury complicating multiple myeloma (MM) and its impact on further dialysis dependency. Methods Sixty patients with acute dialysis-dependent renal failure secondary to MM were treated with MCO-HD (55 patients) or HCO (high cutoff)-HD (5 patients) as a control. FLC serum concentration, total protein, immunoglobulins, and LDH were measured throughout the dialysis therapy. The kidney function of the patients was followed up for 1 year. Results The median age was 69 years; 25 female and 35 male patients were enrolled. HD significantly reduced FLC kappa levels in the MCO/HCO group by 58%/84% (MCO/HCO group; p &lt; 0.05) and FLC lambda by 39%/33% (MCO/HCO group; p &lt; 0.05). Single HD data (MCO) showed a relative reduction of 70% in kappa and 37% in lambda FLC concentration, as expected by the different sizes of the light chains. Renal function improved significantly and continuously from starting creatinine 5.7/3.8 mg/dl (MCO/HCO group) before HD to 1.4/2.0 mg/dl (MCO/HCO group; p &lt; 0.001) after 1 year. No significant alteration of total protein, immunoglobulins, and LDH concentrations by HD (HCO and MCO group) was observed. After 1 year, 37 of 60 patients were alive and 34 of them were off dialysis. Conclusion FLC elimination with MCO-HD is effective, technically easy, and less cost-intensive as compared with HCO-HD. Kidney function recovery in MM patients is achievable. </sec

Secreted factors from mouse embryonic fibroblasts maintain repopulating function of single cultured hematopoietic stem cells

Hematopoietic stem cell self-renewal, proliferation, and differentiation are independently regulated by intrinsic as well as extrinsic mechanisms. We previously demonstrated that murine proliferation of hematopoietic stem cells is supported in serum-free medium supplemented with two growth factors, stem cell factor and interleukin 11. The survival of hematopoietic stem cells is additionally improved by supplementing this medium with two more growth factors, neural growth factor and collagen 1 (four growth factors) or serum-free medium conditioned by the hematopoietic stem cell-supportive stromal UG26-1B6 cells1. Here, we describe a robust and versatile alternative source of conditioned medium from mouse embryonic fibroblasts. We found that this conditioned medium supports survival and phenotypical identity of hematopoietic stem cells, as well as cell cycle entry in single cell cultures of CD34- CD48- CD150+ Lineage- SCA1+ KIT+ cells supplemented with two growth factors. Strikingly, in comparison with cultures in serum-free medium with four growth factors, conditioned medium from mouse embryonic fibroblasts increases the numbers of proliferating clones and the number of Lineage- SCA1+ KIT+ cells, both with two and four growth factors. In addition, conditioned medium from mouse embryonic fibroblasts supports self-renewal in culture of cells with short- and long-term hematopoiesis-repopulating ability in vivo. These findings identify conditioned medium from mouse embryonic fibroblasts as a robust alternative serumfree source of factors to maintain self-renewal of in vivo-repopulating hematopoetic stem cells in culture

Osteoprogenitor SFRP1 prevents exhaustion of hematopoietic stem cells via PP2A-PR72/130-mediated regulation of p300

Remodeling of the bone marrow microenvironment in chronic inflammation and in aging reduces hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) function. To assess the mechanisms of this functional decline of HSC and find strategies to counteract it, we established a model in which the Sfrp1 gene was deleted in Osterix+ osteolineage cells (OS1Δ/Δ mice). HSC from these mice showed severely diminished repopulating activity with associated DNA damage, enriched expression of the reactive oxygen species pathway and reduced single-cell proliferation. Interestingly, not only was the protein level of Catenin beta-1 (bcatenin) elevated, but so was its association with the phosphorylated co-activator p300 in the nucleus. Since these two proteins play a key role in promotion of differentiation and senescence, we inhibited in vivo phosphorylation of p300 through PP2A-PR72/130 by administration of IQ-1 in OS1Δ/Δ mice. This treatment not only reduced the b-catenin/phosphop300 association, but also decreased nuclear p300. More importantly, in vivo IQ-1 treatment fully restored HSC repopulating activity of the OS1Δ/Δ mice. Our findings show that the osteoprogenitor Sfrp1 is essential for maintaining HSC function. Furthermore, pharmacological downregulation of the nuclear b-catenin/phospho-p300 association is a new strategy to restore poor HSC function

Efficacy, immunogenicity and harms of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination for kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review

The aim of this systematic review is to synthetize evidence for the immune response to additional doses of SARS-CoV-2- vaccines after full immunization and vaccine efficacy. Adverse events, especially concerning de-novo-formation of donor-specific antibodies and acute graft rejections will also be reported. We will include analyses of the vaccines appproved for emergency use by the EMA and also by the WHO. In addition, we will include Sputnik V (Gamaleya Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine) despite pending approval by EMA or WHO because of its wide distribution in 74 countries as of February 14th. - Cominarty (BioNTech and Pfizer), also Tozinameran, BNT162b2 - Nuvaxovid (Novavax), also NVX-CoV2373 and their formulations - Spikevax (Moderna), also mRNA-1273 - Vaxzevria (Oxford/AstraZeneca), also AZD1222, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and their formulations - COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen (Johnson &amp; Johnson), also Ad26COVS1, JNJ-78436735 - Sinovac, also Coronavac - Covilo (Sinopharm (Beijing)), also BBIBP-CorV (Vero Cells) - Covaxin (Bharat Biotech), also BBV15

Efficacy, immunogenicity and harms of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination for kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review

The aim of this systematic review is to synthetize evidence for the immune response to additional doses of SARS-CoV-2- vaccines after full immunization and vaccine efficacy. Adverse events, especially concerning de-novo-formation of donor-specific antibodies and acute graft rejections will also be reported. We will include analyses of the vaccines appproved for emergency use by the EMA and also by the WHO. In addition, we will include Sputnik V (Gamaleya Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine) despite pending approval by EMA or WHO because of its wide distribution in 74 countries as of February 14th. - Cominarty (BioNTech and Pfizer), also Tozinameran, BNT162b2 - Nuvaxovid (Novavax), also NVX-CoV2373 and their formulations - Spikevax (Moderna), also mRNA-1273 - Vaxzevria (Oxford/AstraZeneca), also AZD1222, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and their formulations - COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen (Johnson &amp; Johnson), also Ad26COVS1, JNJ-78436735 - Sinovac, also Coronavac - Covilo (Sinopharm (Beijing)), also BBIBP-CorV (Vero Cells) - Covaxin (Bharat Biotech), also BBV152 We aim to compare heterologous vs. homologous vaccination schemes, mRNA vs. adenoviral vector vaccines and other mechanisms. We will also compare immune responses to the mRNA vaccines from BioNtech and Moderna

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19

Background Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis). Search methods We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion. Data collection and analysis We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life). Main results We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis. Authors' conclusions For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search

Effectiveness, Immunogenicity and Harms of Additional SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Doses in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review

Background: Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) who have a highly impaired immune response are in need of intensified and safe vaccination strategies to achieve seroconversion and prevent severe disease. Methods: We searched the Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO COVID-19 global literature on coronavirus disease from January 2020 to 22 July 2022 for prospective studies that assessed immunogenicity and efficacy after three or more SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. Results: In 37 studies on 3429 patients, de novo seroconversion after three and four vaccine doses ranged from 32 to 60% and 25 to 37%. Variant-specific neutralization was 59 to 70% for Delta and 12 to 52% for Omicron. Severe disease after infection was rarely reported but all concerned KTRs lacked immune responses after vaccination. Studies investigating the clinical course of COVID-19 found remarkably higher rates of severe disease than in the general population. Serious adverse events and acute graft rejections were very rare. Substantial heterogeneity between the studies limited their comparability and summary. Conclusion: Additional SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses are potent and safe in general terms as well as regarding transplant-specific outcomes whilst the Omicron wave remains a significant threat to KTRs without adequate immune responses

Only IF/TA in the Histological Evaluation of Post-Reperfusion Baseline Biopsies Correlates With Kidney Transplant Outcome

Here, we retrospectively evaluated the informational yield of 338 post-reperfusion kidney transplant biopsies (including 95 living donations) assessed according to BANFF for the histological characteristics interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IF/TA), glomerulosclerosis, arteriosclerosis, and acute tubular injury (ATI). Associations with delayed graft function (DGF) and death-censored graft survival were explored through Cox-regression analyses. The maximum follow-up time was 11.4 years, with DGF observed in 108 (32%) cases. After deceased donation there was no association between DGF and histologic parameters. Univariable Cox-regression unveiled an association of IF/TA and glomerulosclerosis with long-term death-censored graft survival (HR per 10% increase: IF/TA 1.63; 95% CI 1.17–2.28; p = 0.003; glomerulosclerosis 1.19; 95% CI 1.01–1.39; p = 0.031). In multivariable Cox regression analyses, adjusted for recognized clinical risk variables like expanded criteria donor-status, donor age, history of diabetes, and HLA-mismatches, only IF/TA maintained association over the total observation period in deceased donations and in the total cohort. Arteriosclerosis and ATI were not associated with clinical outcome after deceased donation. Especially ATI did not affect delayed graft function if only deceased donations were considered. Our data underlines the role of organ quality for transplant outcome prior to acute lesions such as ATI during the transplantation process