Matthias Peiper

Background: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has been the main tool to contain the pandemic. The rush development of the 3 vaccines and their expedited approval have led to inoculation of millions of patients around the world, leading to a containment of the disease. Despite continuous viral mutations and the identification of weaker variants, the severity of the infections has been mild, with many patients being either asymptomatic or recovering at home. Currently the focus has shifted from the host of organ damage related to the infection to potential side effects of the vaccine. Myocarditis has been reported as one of the potential side effects from the mRNA vaccine, affecting young healthy individuals. Up to September 30, 2021, 1.243 cases of myocarditis after vaccination with BNT162b2 Comirnaty© were registered in young adults by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute in Germany alone. The exact pathophysiology and the risk factors for myocarditis following vaccination remain unclear. We present a case series of eight patients with cardiac symptom shortly after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination (BNT162b6, Biontech, Comirnaty© or mRNA-1237 Moderna, Spikevax©). Patients and methods: Eight patients between 13 and 56 years of age, vaccinated with either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 mRNA vaccine between January and August 2021 developed cardiac side effects shortly after either their first or second dose of the vaccine. Clinical data were retrieved from the clinical information system and analyzed. To support diagnosis of myocarditis or pericarditis, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed shortly after the onset of symptoms, with further investigations in severe cases. Symptoms were defined as dyspnea, chest pain and cardiac arrhythmia as determined by electrocardiography. Results: Eight patients (5 males and 3 females) developed cardiac symptoms compatible with myocarditis, according to the CDC criteria, shortly after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. Three patients (2 males, 1 female) required hospitalization due to severe chest pain and elevated troponin levels. All patients recovered fully within 7 days from the symptom onset. Conclusions: Our data suggest that cardiac adverse events such as myocarditis or pericarditis shortly after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination are rare but possible and occur particularly in male patients.

Aim: Plantar enthesophyte is a common degenerative disorder. Surgical and medical treatment options are associated with either poor outcome or high percentage of relapse. Observations have indicated a beneficial effect of radiation therapy. We therefore wanted to evaluate pain reduction using orthovolt or cobalt-based radiation treatment for painful plantar enthesophyte and determine long-term response as well as prognostic parameters in this condition.Methods: We identified a total of 102 consecutive patients treated for a total of 117 symptomatic heel spurs. 59 patients were treated with cobalt radiation, 31 patients with orthovolt therapy and 12 patients with both radiation systems. Primary outcome measure was pain reduction being scored using the modified Rowe Score prior therapy, at the end of each treatment series as well as after 6 weeks. Secondary outcome measure was long-term outcome, evaluated in patients with a follow-up period of longer than 3 years.Results: Before radiation therapy, 61 patients (60.4%) had a score of 0, significant strong pain. At the time of completion of radiation treatment, 3 patients (2.7%) were pain-free (score of 30), whereas 8 patients (7.9%) had still severe pain (score 0). 6 weeks after radiation therapy, 33 patients (32.7%) were pain-free and 8 patients (7.9%) had severe pain (score 0), while at the time data of collection, 74 patients (73%) were free of pain and 1 patient (1%) had strong pain (score 0). Duration of pain before the start of radiation treatment was a significant prognostic factor (p = 0.012) for response to treatment.Conclusion: Radiotherapy of painful plantar enthesophyte is a highly effective therapy with little side effects providing long-term therapeutic response. The only significant prognostic parameter for response to treatment is the duration of pre-radiation therapy pain. Early integration of radiation therapy in the treatment seems to result in superior pain reduction.

Background: The standard treatment of high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma consists of surgical resection followed by risk-adapted radiation therapy. Further treatment options that may improve local and systemic tumor control, including chemotherapy, are not well established. Due to the heterogeneity of the disease, different systemic approaches as well as their application at different time points have been attempted. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search for randomized clinical trials in the treatment of localized, resectable high-risk adult soft-tissue sarcoma comparing different treatment modalities according to the PRISMA guidelines. We extracted published hazard ratios and number of events for the endpoints overall and disease-free survival (OS; DFS) as well as local and distant recurrence-free interval (LRFI; DRFI). The different modalities were compared in a network meta-analysis against the defined standard treatment surgery ± radiotherapy using the inverse-variance heterogeneity model. Results: The literature search identified 25 trials including 3453 patients. Five different treatment modalities were compared in the network meta-analysis. The addition of adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved OS compared to surgery ± radiotherapy alone (HR = 0.86; CI-95%: 0.75–0.97; p = 0.017). Likewise, neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with regional hyperthermia (naCTx + HTx) also led to superior OS (HR = 0.45; CI-95%: 0.20–1.00; p = 0.049). Both neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (naCTx) and perioperative chemotherapy (periCTx) did not improve OS (HR = 0.61; CI-95%: 0.29–1.29; p = 0.195 and HR = 0.66; CI-95%: 0.30–1.48; p = 0.317, respectively). Histology-tailored chemotherapy (htCTx) also did not improve survival compared to surgery ± radiotherapy (HR = 1.08; CI-95%: 0.45–2.61; p = 0.868). The network analysis of DFS, LRFI, and DRFI revealed a similar pattern between the different treatment regimens. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved DFS, LRFI, and DRFI compared to surgery ± radiotherapy. In direct comparison, this advantage of adjuvant chemotherapy was restricted to male patients (HR = 0.78; CI-95%: 0.65–0.92; p = 0.004) with no effect for female patients (HR = 1.08; CI-95%: 0.90–1.29; p = 0.410). Conclusions: Standardized chemotherapy in high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma appears to be of added value irrespective of timing. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy seems to be restricted to male patients. The addition of regional hyperthermia to neodjuvant chemotherapy achieved the best effect sizes and might warrant further investigation.

Background: COVID-19, the pandemic disease caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2, may take highly variable clinical courses, ranging from symptom-free and pauci-symptomatic to fatal disease. The goal of the current study was to assess the association of COVID-19 clinical courses controlled by patients’ adaptive immune responses without progression to severe disease with patients’ Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) genetics, AB0 blood group antigens, and the presence or absence of near-loss-of-function delta 32 deletion mutant of the C–C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5). Patient and methods: An exploratory observational study including 157 adult COVID-19 convalescent patients was performed with a median follow-up of 250 days. The impact of different HLA genotypes, AB0 blood group antigens, and the CCR5 mutant CD195 were investigated for their role in the clinical course of COVID-19. In addition, this study addressed levels of severity and morbidity of COVID-19. The association of the immunogenetic background parameters were further related to patients’ humoral antiviral immune response patterns by longitudinal observation. Results: Univariate HLA analyses identified putatively protective HLA alleles (HLA class II DRB1*01:01 and HLA class I B*35:01, with a trend for DRB1*03:01). They were associated with reduced durations of disease instead decreased (rather than increased) total anti-S IgG levels. They had a higher virus neutralizing capacity compared to non-carriers. Conversely, analyses also identified HLA alleles (HLA class II DQB1*03:02 und HLA class I B*15:01) not associated with such benefit in the patient cohort of this study. Hierarchical testing by Cox regression analyses confirmed the significance of the protective effect of the HLA alleles identified (when assessed in composite) in terms of disease duration, whereas AB0 blood group antigen heterozygosity was found to be significantly associated with disease severity (rather than duration) in our cohort. A suggestive association of a heterozygous CCR5 delta 32 mutation status with prolonged disease duration was implied by univariate analyses but could not be confirmed by hierarchical multivariate testing. Conclusion: The current study shows that the presence of HLA class II DRB1*01:01 and HLA class I B*35:01 is of even stronger association with reduced disease duration in mild and moderate COVID-19 than age or any other potential risk factor assessed. Prospective studies in larger patient populations also including novel SARS-CoV-2 variants will be required to assess the impact of HLA genetics on the capacity of mounting protective vaccination responses in the future.

Background: COVID-19 infection is a major threat to patients and health care providers around the world. One solution is the vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: We performed a comprehensive query of the latest publications on the prevention of viral infections including the recent vaccination program and its side effects. Results: The situation is evolving rapidly and there is no reasonable alternative to population-scale vaccination programs as currently enrolled. Conclusion: Therefore, regulatory authorities should consider supplementing their conventional mandate of post-approval pharmacovigilance, which is based on the collection, assessment, and regulatory response to emerging safety findings.

Background: The German government has made it mandatory to wear respiratory masks covering mouth and nose (MNC) as an effective strategy to fight SARS-CoV-2 infections. In many countries, this directive has been extended on shopping malls or public transportation. The aim of this paper is to critically analyze the statutory regulation to wear protective masks during the COVID-19 crisis from a medical standpoint.Methods: We performed an extensive query of the most recent publications addressing the prevention of viral infections including the use of face masks in the community as a method to prevent the spread of the infection. We addressed the issues of practicability, professional use, and acceptability based on the community and the environment where the user resided.Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. However, the use of MNC seems to be linked to relevant protection during close contact scenarios by limiting pathogen-containing aerosol and liquid droplet dissemination. Importantly, we found evidence for significant respiratory compromise in patients with severe obstructive pulmonary disease, secondary to the development of hypercapnia. This could also happen in patients with lung infections, with or without SARS-CoV-2.Conclusion: Epidemiologists currently emphasize that wearing MNC will effectively interrupt airborne infections in the community. The government and the politicians have followed these recommendations and used them to both advise and, in some cases, mandate the general population to wear MNC in public locations. Overall, the results seem to suggest that there are some clinically relevant scenarios where the use of MNC necessitates more defined recommendations. Our critical evaluation of the literature both highlights the protective effects of certain types of face masks in defined risk groups, and emphasizes their potential risks.

The rapid spread of the corona virus pandemic is an existential problem for many people in numerous countries. So far, there is no effective vaccine protection or proven therapy available against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In this review, we describe the role of passive immunization in times of the corona virus. Passive immunization could be a bridging technology to improve the immune defense of critically ill patients until better approaches with effective medications are available.