| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Ross, Owen A., et al.
(författare)
-
Mitochondrial DNA damage in lymphocytes : a role in immunosenescence?
- 2002
-
Ingår i: Experimental Gerontology. - : Elsevier. - 0531-5565 .- 1873-6815. ; 37:2-3, s. 329-340
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- An age-related increase of DNA damage/mutation has been previously reported in human lymphocytes. The high copy number and mutation rate make the mtDNA genome an ideal candidate for assessing damage and to act as a potential biomarker of ageing. In the present study, two assays were developed to evaluate the level of mtDNA4977 and the accumulation of point mutations with age. A competitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methodology incorporating three primers was used to detect and quantify the levels of mtDNA4977 and a novel heteroduplex reference strand conformational analysis (RSCA) technique was used to analyse the accumulation of point mutations. The assays were applied to an in vitro model of T cell ageing and ex vivo DNA samples from an elderly cohort of subjects and a younger control group. The mtDNA4977 was detected in all the DNA samples examined but only a very low concentration was observed and no age-related increase or accumulation was observed. No accumulation of point mutations was identified using RSCA within the T cell clones as they were aged or the ex vivo lymphocytes from the elderly cohort. A higher level of variation was observed within the ex vivo DNA samples, verifying the high resolution of RSCA and its ability to identify different mtDNA species, although no correlation with age was observed. The low level of mtDNA damage observed with respect to the ex vivo lymphocyte DNA samples within this study may be due in part to the high turnover of blood cells/mtDNA, which may inhibit the accumulation of genetically abnormal mtDNA that may play a role in immunosenescence. A similar explanation may also apply to the in vitro model of T cell ageing if the vast majority of the cells are replicating rather than entering senescence.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kim, Min Seo, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparative effectiveness of N95, surgical or medical, and non-medical facemasks in protection against respiratory virus infection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Reviews in Medical Virology. - : WILEY. - 1052-9276 .- 1099-1654. ; 32:5
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of N95, surgical/medical and non-medical facemasks as personal protective equipment against respiratory virus infection. The study incorporated 35 published and unpublished randomized controlled trials and observational studies investigating specific mask effectiveness against influenza virus, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar and medRxiv databases for studies published up to 5 February 2021 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020214729). The primary outcome of interest was the rate of respiratory viral infection. The quality of evidence was estimated using the GRADE approach. High compliance to mask-wearing conferred a significantly better protection (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.82) than low compliance. N95 or equivalent masks were the most effective in providing protection against coronavirus infections (OR, 0.30; CI, 0.20-0.44) consistently across subgroup analyses of causative viruses and clinical settings. Evidence supporting the use of medical or surgical masks against influenza or coronavirus infections (SARS, MERS and COVID-19) was weak. Our study confirmed that the use of facemasks provides protection against respiratory viral infections in general; however, the effectiveness may vary according to the type of facemask used. Our findings encourage the use of N95 respirators or their equivalents (e.g., P2) for best personal protection in healthcare settings until more evidence on surgical and medical masks is accrued. This study highlights a substantial lack of evidence on the comparative effectiveness of mask types in community settings.
|
|
| 4. |
- Kim, Min Seo, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparative safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to influenza vaccines: A pharmacovigilance analysis using WHO international database
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Virology. - : WILEY. - 0146-6615 .- 1096-9071. ; 94:3, s. 1085-1095
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Two messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna are being rolled out. Despite the high volume of emerging evidence regarding adverse events (AEs) associated with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, previous studies have thus far been largely based on the comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated control, possibly highlighting the AE risks with COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Comparing the safety profile of mRNA vaccinated individuals with otherwise vaccinated individuals would enable a more relevant assessment for the safety of mRNA vaccination. We designed a comparative safety study between 18 755 and 27 895 individuals who reported to VigiBase for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) with mRNA COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, respectively, from January 1, 2020, to January 17, 2021. We employed disproportionality analysis to rapidly detect relevant safety signals and compared comparative risks of a diverse span of AEFIs for the vaccines. The safety profile of novel mRNA vaccines was divergent from that of influenza vaccines. The overall pattern suggested that systematic reactions like chill, myalgia, fatigue were more noticeable with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, while injection site reactogenicity events were more prevalent with the influenza vaccine. Compared to the influenza vaccine, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated a significantly higher risk for a few manageable cardiovascular complications, such as hypertensive crisis (adjusted reporting odds ratio [ROR], 12.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.47-65.54), and supraventricular tachycardia (adjusted ROR, 7.94; 95% CI, 2.62-24.00), but lower risk of neurological complications such as syncope, neuralgia, loss of consciousness, Guillain-Barre syndrome, gait disturbance, visual impairment, and dyskinesia. This study has not identified significant safety concerns regarding mRNA vaccination in real-world settings. The overall safety profile patterned a lower risk of serious AEFI following mRNA vaccines compared to influenza vaccines.
|
|
