Influenza A/H1N1 vaccination of patients with SLE: can antimalarial drugs restore diminished response under immunosuppressive therapy?

Objective. To assess the efficacy and safety of pandemic 2009 influenza A (H1N1) in SLE under different therapeutic regimens. Methods. A total of 555 SLE patients and 170 healthy controls were vaccinated with a single dose of a non-adjuvanted preparation. According to current therapy, patients were initially classified as SLE No Therapy (n = 75) and SLE with Therapy (n = 480). Subsequent evaluations included groups under monotherapy: chloroquine (CQ) (n = 105), prednisone (PRED) epsilon 20 mg (n = 76), immunosuppressor (IS) (n = 95) and those with a combination of these drugs. Anti-H1N1 titres and seroconversion (SC) rate were evaluated at entry and 21 days post-vaccination. Results. The SLE with Therapy group had lower SC compared with healthy controls (59.0 vs 80.0%; P < 0.0001), whereas the SLE No Therapy group had equivalent SC (72 vs 80.0%; P = 0.18) compared with healthy controls. Further comparison revealed that the SC of SLE No Therapy (72%) was similar to the CQ group (69.5%; P = 0.75), but it was significantly reduced in PRED epsilon 20 mg (53.9%; P = 0.028), IS (55.7%; P = 0.035) and PRED epsilon 20 mg + IS (45.4%; P = 0.038). The concomitant use of CQ in each of these later regimens was associated with SC responses comparable with SLE No Therapy group (72%): PRED epsilon 20 mg + CQ (71.4%; P = 1.00), IS + CQ (65.2%; P = 0.54) and PRED epsilon 20 mg + IS + CQ (57.4%; P = 0.09). Conclusion. Pandemic influenza A H1N1/2009 vaccine response is diminished in SLE under immunosuppressive therapy and antimalarials seems to restore this immunogenicity.

Bioethics and medical/legal considerations on cochlear implants in children

Cochlear implants are the best treatment for congenital profound deafness. Pediatric candidates to implantation are seen as vulnerable citizens, and the decision of implanting cochlear devices is ultimately in the hands of their parents/guardians. The Brazilian Penal Code dictates that deaf people may enjoy diminished criminal capacity. Many are the bioethical controversies around cochlear implants, as representatives from the deaf community have seen in them a means of decimating their culture and intrinsic values. Objective: This paper aims to discuss, in bioethical terms, the validity of implanting cochlear hearing aids in children by analyzing their vulnerability and the social/cultural implications of the procedure itself, aside from looking into the medical/legal aspects connected to their criminal capacity. Materials and Methods: The topic was searched on databases Medline and Lilacs; ethical analysis was done based on principialist bioethics. Results: Cochlear implants are the best therapeutic option for people with profound deafness and are morally justified. The level of criminal capacity attributed to deaf people requires careful analysis of the subject's degree of understanding and determination when carrying out the acts for which he/she has been charged. Conclusion: Cochlear implants are morally valid. Implantations must be analyzed on an each case basis. ENT physicians bear the ethical responsibility for indicating cochlear implants and must properly inform the child's parents/guardians and get their written consent before performing the procedure.

Diminished Mycophenolic Acid Exposure Caused by Omeprazole May Be Clinically Relevant in the First Week Posttransplantation

Background: Some studies have reported a decreased absorption of mycophenolic acid (MPA) from mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in renal transplanted (RTx) patients under proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs). There is still a lack of information regarding (1) whether this effect occurs when MMF is administered with either tacrolimus or cyclosporine A [calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs)], (2) whether the effect has the same amplitude during the first year after RTx, and finally (3) whether this decrease in exposure is clinically relevant. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the omeprazole effect in 348 12-hour pharmacokinetic samplings [area under the curve (AUC) 0-12h] performed on days 7, 14, 30, 60, 180, and 360 after RTx in 77 patients who participated in previous trials. Results: For all periods, the groups with and without PPI did not differ in all variables. By mixed-model analysis of variance, PPI reduced the MPA AUC(0-12h) (P < 0.0008) in the patients under both CNIs mainly due to decreased absorption (P = 0.049). In the tacrolimus group, a lower exposure seemed also due to a decreased MPA reabsorption at 10-12 hours. The PPI effect remains throughout the first year but was clinically more important on day 7. By Cox analysis, the use of PPI was associated with a 25% less chance of being adequately exposed to MPA (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.99, P = 0.04). Similarly, the number of patients underexposed to MPA (AUC < 30 ng.h/mL) was higher at most periods in the PPI group but again not statistically significant. Conclusions: These data indicate that PPI decreases the MPA exposure when associated with both CNIs but particularly in the first week after RTx. In this period, the MMF dose should be increased. This effect lasts throughout the first year but does not seem to be clinically relevant after the first week.