No abstract

No abstract

Background Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is responsible for inflammatory liver disease and can cause severe health problems. Because the seroprevalence of HEV varies within different population groups and between regions of the continent, we conducted a systematic review on the topic in order to provide evidence for targeted prevention strategies. Methods We performed a systematic review in PubMed, SCIELO, LILACS, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library and included reports up to 25 May 2021 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020173934). We assessed the risk of bias, publication bias, and heterogeneity between studies and conducted a random-effect meta-analysis for proportions using a (binomial-normal) generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) fitted by Maximum Likelihood (ML). We also reported other characteristics like genotype and risk factors. Results Of 1212 identified records, 142 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis and 132 in the quantitative analysis. Our random-effects GLMM pooled overall estimate for past infection (IgG) was 7.7% (95% CI 6.4%–9.2%) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 97%). We found higher seroprevalence in certain population groups, for example in people with pig related exposure for IgG (ranges from 6.2%–28% and pooled estimate of 13.8%, 95% CI: 7.6%–23.6%), or with diagnosed or suspected acute viral hepatitis for IgM (ranges from 0.3%–23.9% and pooled estimate of 5.5%, 95% CI: 2.0%–14.1%). Increasing age, contact with pigs and meat products, and low socioeconomic conditions are the main risk factors for HEV infection. Genotype 1 and 3 were documented across the region. Conclusion HEV seroprevalence estimates demonstrated high variability within the Americas. There are population groups with higher seroprevalence and reported risk factors for HEV infection that need to be prioritized for further research. Due to human transmission and zoonotic infections in the region, preventive strategies should include water sanitation, occupational health, and food safety.

BackgroundThere is evidence that the benefit of a primary prophylactic ICD therapy is not equal in all patients. PurposeTo evaluate risk factors of appropriate shocks and all-cause mortality in patients with a primary prophylactic ICD regarding contemporary studies. Data sourcePubMed, LIVIVO, Cochrane CENTRAL between 2010 and 2016. Study selectionStudies were eligible if at least one of the endpoints of interest were reported. Data extractionAll abstracts were independently reviewed by at least two authors. The full text of all selected studies was then analysed in detail. Data synthesisOur search strategy retrieved 608 abstracts. After exclusion of unsuitable studies, 36 papers with a total patient number of 47282 were included in our analysis. All-cause mortality was significantly associated with increasing age (HR 1.41, CI 1.29-1.53), left ventricular function (LVEF; HR 1.21, CI 1.14-1.29), ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM; HR 1.37, CI 1.14-1.66) and co-morbidities such as impaired renal function (HR 2.30, CI 1.97-2.69). Although, younger age (HR 0.96 LimitationsIndividual patient data were not available for most studies. ConclusionIn this meta-analysis of contemporary clinical studies, all-cause mortality is predicted by a variety of clinical characteristics including LVEF. On the other hand, the risk of appropriate shocks might be associated with impaired LVEF and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Further prospective studies are required to verify risk factors for appropriate shocks other than LVEF to help select appropriate patients for primary prophylactic ICD-therapy.

SARS-CoV-2 variants accumulating immune escape mutations provide a significant risk to vaccine-induced protection against infection. The novel variant of concern (VoC) Omicron BA.1 and its sub-lineages have the largest number of amino acid alterations in its Spike protein to date. Thus, they may efficiently escape recognition by neutralizing antibodies, allowing breakthrough infections in convalescent and vaccinated individuals in particular in those who have only received a primary immunization scheme. We analyzed neutralization activity of sera from individuals after vaccination with all mRNA-, vector- or heterologous immunization schemes currently available in Europe by in vitro neutralization assay at peak response towards SARS-CoV-2 B.1, Omicron sub-lineages BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.3, BA.4/5, Beta and Delta pseudotypes and also provide longitudinal follow-up data from BNT162b2 vaccinees. All vaccines apart from Ad26.CoV2.S showed high levels of responder rates (96–100%) towards the SARS-CoV-2 B.1 isolate, and minor to moderate reductions in neutralizing Beta and Delta VoC pseudotypes. The novel Omicron variant and its sub-lineages had the biggest impact, both in terms of response rates and neutralization titers. Only mRNA-1273 showed a 100% response rate to Omicron BA.1 and induced the highest level of neutralizing antibody titers, followed by heterologous prime-boost approaches. Homologous BNT162b2 vaccination, vector-based AZD1222 and Ad26.CoV2.S performed less well with peak responder rates of 48%, 56% and 9%, respectively. However, Omicron responder rates in BNT162b2 recipients were maintained in our six month longitudinal follow-up indicating that individuals with cross-protection against Omicron maintain it over time. Overall, our data strongly argue for booster doses in individuals who were previously vaccinated with BNT162b2, or a vector-based primary immunization scheme.