No abstract

A cohort of 363 rural children in Bilbeis, Egypt, were followed from birth from 1981 to 1983, with twice-weekly home visits made to detect diarrheal illness. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used for detection of rotavirus in stools collected during episodes of diarrhea. Rotavirus-associated diarrhea was detected once in 74 children and twice in 12 children. Using a technique not previously described, the authors calculated the age-specific incidence rates for initial episodes and second episodes of rotavirus-associated diarrhea to estimate the effectiveness of naturally acquired immunity. Assuming that the risk of exposure was the same before and after the first episode, the observed and expected numbers of second episodes of rotaviral diarrhea were equal (age-adjusted rate ratio = 1.01; 95 percent confidence interval 0.55-1.86), given the age-specific person-years at risk. The assumption of equal risk for reexposure to rotavirus appears to be invalid, however, since the children with one and two rotavirus-positive episodes appeared to be at greater risk for diarrheal illness of all causes (rate ratios of 1.42 and 1.78, respectively). The clinical illness may have been less severe in second episodes; emesis was reported more often with first rotavirus episodes than with second rotavirus episodes, and the only fatal case was in an initial episode. These data are compatible with the existence of partial immunity, since it appears that the risk of reexposure may be greater in children who experienced rotaviral gastroenteritis earlier in life. In four of seven children, rotavirus isolates from first and second episodes were of identical serotypes, indicating that even serotype-specific immunity for rotaviral diarrhea was incomplete.

IMPORTANCEThe monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab reduced viral load, hospitalization, or death when administered as a 1200-mg or greater intravenous (IV) dose in a phase 3 COVID-19 outpatient study. Subcutaneous (SC) and/or lower IV doses should increase accessibility and/or drug supplies for patients. OBJECTIVE To assess the virologic efficacy of casirivimab and imdevimab across different IV and SC doses compared with placebo. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study included outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at 47 sites across the United States. Participants could be symptomatic or asymptomatic; symptomatic patients with risk factors for severe COVID-19 were excluded. Data were collected from December 15, 2020, to March 4, 2021. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to a single IV dose (523 patients) of casirivimab and imdevimab at 300, 600, 1200, or 2400 mg or placebo; or a single SC dose (292 patients) of casirivimab and imdevimab at 600 or 1200 mg or placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was the time-weighted average daily change from baseline (TWACB) in viral load from day 1 (baseline) through day 7 in patients seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. RESULTS Among 815 randomized participants, 507 (282 randomized to IV treatment, 148 randomized to SC treatment, and 77 randomized to placebo) were seronegative at baseline and included in the primary efficacy analysis. Participants randomized to IV had a mean (SD) age of 34.6 (9.6) years (160 [44.6%] men; 14 [3.9%] Black; 121 [33.7%] Hispanic or Latino; 309 [86.1%] White); those randomized to SC had a mean age of 34.1 (10.0) years (102 [45.3%] men; 75 [34.7%] Hispanicor Latino; 6 [2.7%] Black; 190 [84.4%] White). All casirivimab and imdevimab treatments showed significant virologic reduction through day 7. Least-squares mean differences in TWACB viral load for casirivimab and imdevimab vs placebo ranged from -0.56 (95% CI; -0.89 to -0.24) log 10 copies/mL for the 1200-mg IV dose to -0.71 (95% CI, -1.05 to -0.38) log 10 copies/mL for the 2400-mg IV dose. There were no adverse safety signals or dose-related safety findings, grade 2 or greater infusionrelated or hypersensitivity reactions, grade 3 or greater injection-site reactions, or fatalities. Two serious adverse events not related to COVID-19 or the study drug were reported.

Racial Profiling ist eine der sichtbarsten Formen von strukturell rassistischer Gewalt, die gleichzeitig häufig ungesehen bleibt. Sichtbar ist sie, weil die Kontrollen durch die Polizei und die Grenzbehörden in öffentlichen Räumen durchgeführt werden: auf Straßen, in Bahnhöfen und Zügen, bei Grenzübertritten, an urbanen Flussufern, in Rotlichtvierteln, in Einkaufszentren und Ausgehmeilen. Sichtbar ist Racial Profiling aber auch, weil Schwarze Menschen und People of Color »unübersehbar« und unentrinnbar davon betroffen sind. Doch obwohl rassistische Kontrollen im öffentlichen Raum stattfinden, wird diese polizeiliche Praxis von einem großen Teil der Gesellschaft nicht als Rassismus (an)erkannt. Viele Menschen gehen an den Polizeikontrollen vorbei, sie schauen weg, schreiten nicht ein und engagieren sich nicht für deren Abschaffung. Viele äußern direkt oder hinter vorgehaltener Hand Verständnis für die Kontrollen und sind froh, dass sie durchgeführt werden. Racial Profiling wird auf diese Weise »normal« und unsichtbar gemacht. Ungesehen und unwidersprochen bleibt dabei die diskriminierende Macht einer staatlichen Institution, die über das Gewaltmonopol verfügt, um angeblich Sicherheit für alle zu gewährleisten.Polizeikontrollen sind eine zentrale Praxis in der Herstellung gesellschaftlicher Unterschiede und segregierter Räume. Die Polizei stützt sich bei der Durchsetzung des Migrations-, Straf-und Ordnungsrechts auf staatlich legitimierte Kriterien einer vorgestellten bedrohlichen »Andersheit«, auf die hin der öffentliche Raum durchsucht und von der er »befreit« werden soll. Damit wird auf drastische Weise sichtbar, wer nicht als Mit-Bürger*in gilt und damit von Anfang an dem Verdacht ausgesetzt ist, kriminell oder »illegal« zu sein oder zu stören. Die gängige Meinung besagt, dass sich Racial Profiling auf körperliche, religiöse oder kulturelle Unterschiede stützt, um Gefahren

Background: The prevalence of coronary artery disease in cirrhotic population is estimated to be low and the risk of bleeding in those who had percutaneous catheterization interventions (PCI) is not well studied yet. Our aim in this study is to determine the morbidity and mortality risks in cirrhotic patient undergoing PCI.