Glucocorticoid: Major Factor for Reduced Immunogenicity of 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccine in Patients with Juvenile Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease

Objective. To assess the immunogenicity and safety of non-adjuvanted influenza A H1N1/2009 vaccine in patients with juvenile autoimmune rheumatic disease (ARD) and healthy controls, because data are limited to the adult rheumatologic population. Method's. A total of 237 patients with juvenile ARD [juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus (JSLE), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM), juvenile scleroderma, and vasculitis] and 91 healthy controls were vaccinated. Serology for anti-H1N1 was performed by hemagglutination inhibition assay. Seroprotection rate, seroconversion rate, and factor-increase in geometric mean titer (GMT) were calculated. Adverse events were evaluated. Results. Age was comparable in patients and controls (14.8 +/- 3.0 vs 14.6 +/- 3.7 years, respectively; p = 0.47). Three weeks after immunization, seroprotection rate (81.4% vs 95.6%; p = 0.0007), seroconversion rate (74.3 vs 95.6%; p < 0.0001), and the factor-increase in GMT (12.9 vs 20.3; p = 0.012) were significantly lower in patients with juvenile ARD versus controls. Subgroup analysis revealed reduced seroconversion rates in JSLE (p < 0.0001), JIA (p = 0.008), JDM (p = 0.025), and vasculitis (p = 0.017). Seroprotection (p < 0.0001) and GMT (p < 0.0001) were decreased only in JSLE. Glucocorticoid use and lymphopenia were associated with lower seroconversion rates (60.4 vs 82.9%; p = 0.0001; and 55.6 vs 77.2%; p = 0.012). Multivariate logistic regression including diseases, lymphopenia, glucocorticoid, and immunosuppressants demonstrated that only glucocorticoid use (p = 0.012) remained significant. Conclusion. This is the largest study to demonstrate a reduced but adequate immune response to H1N1 vaccine in patients with juvenile ARD. It identified current glucocorticoid use as the major factor for decreased antibody production. The short-term safety results support its routine recommendation for patients with juvenile ARD. ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01151644. (First Release Nov 15 2011; J Rheumatol 2012;39:167-73; doi:10.3899/jrheum.110721)

A phase I randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of 2009 influenza A (H1N1) inactivated monovalent vaccines with different adjuvant systems

Methods We conducted a phase I, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-arm (10) parallel study involving healthy adults to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 non-adjuvanted and adjuvanted candidate vaccines. Subjects received two intramuscular injections of one of the candidate vaccines administered 21 days apart. Antibody responses were measured by means of hemagglutination-inhibition assay before and 21 days after each vaccination. The three co-primary immunogenicity end points were the proportion of seroprotection >70%, seroconversion >40%, and the factor increase in the geometric mean titer >2.5. Results A total of 266 participants were enrolled into the study. No deaths or serious adverse events were reported. The most commonly solicited local and systemic adverse events were injection-site pain and headache, respectively. Only three subjects (1.1%) reported severe injection-site pain. Four 2009 influenza A (H1N1) inactivated monovalent candidate vaccines that met the three requirements to evaluate influenza protection, after a single dose, were identified: 15 μg of hemagglutinin antigen without adjuvant; 7.5 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with aluminum hydroxide, MPL and squalene; 3.75 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with aluminum hydroxide and MPL; and 3.75 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with aluminum hydroxide and squalene. Conclusions Adjuvant systems can be safely used in influenza vaccines, including the adjuvant monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) derived from Bordetella pertussis with squalene and aluminum hydroxide, MPL with aluminum hydroxide, and squalene and aluminum hydroxide.

Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Inactivated Monovalent Non-Adjuvanted Vaccine in Elderly and Immunocompromised Patients

Background Immunosuppressed individuals present serious morbidity and mortality from influenza, therefore it is important to understand the safety and immunogenicity of influenza vaccination among them. Methods This multicenter cohort study evaluated the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of an inactivated, monovalent, non-adjuvanted pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccine among the elderly, HIV-infected, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), cancer, kidney transplant, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients. Participants were included during routine clinical visits, and vaccinated according to conventional influenza vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition assay, before and 21 days after vaccination. Results 319 patients with cancer, 260 with RA, 256 HIV-infected, 149 elderly individuals, 85 kidney transplant recipients, and 83 with JIA were included. The proportions of seroprotection, seroconversion, and the geometric mean titer ratios postvaccination were, respectively: 37.6%, 31.8%, and 3.2 among kidney transplant recipients, 61.5%, 53.1%, and 7.5 among RA patients, 63.1%, 55.7%, and 5.7 among the elderly, 59.0%, 54.7%, and 5.9 among HIV-infected patients, 52.4%, 49.2%, and 5.3 among cancer patients, 85.5%, 78.3%, and 16.5 among JIA patients. The vaccine was well tolerated, with no reported severe adverse events. Conclusions The vaccine was safe among all groups, with an acceptable immunogenicity among the elderly and JIA patients, however new vaccination strategies should be explored to improve the immune response of immunocompromised adult patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01218685)

Pandemic unadjuvanted influenza A (H1N1) vaccine in dermatomyositis and polymyositis: Immunogenicity independent of therapy and no harmful effect in disease

The goal of the present study was to evaluate the influence of the influenza A H1N1/2009 vaccine on dermatomyositis/polymyositis (DM/PM) disease parameters and the potential deleterious effect of therapy on immune response. Thirty-seven DM and 21 PM patients (Bohan and Peter's criteria) were gender- and age-matched to 116 healthy controls. Seroprotection, seroconversion, the geometric mean titers (GMTs) and the factor increase (FI) in the GMTs were calculated. Disease safety was determined from a muscle enzyme analysis and the DM/PM scores [patient's visual analog scale (VAS), physician's VAS, manual muscle strength (MMT-8)] evaluated pre- and post-vaccination. The mean age (43.1 +/- 9.9 vs. 43.8 +/- 8.4 years, p = 0.607) and gender distribution (p = 1.00) were comparable between the patients and controls. After 21 days, seroconversion (p = 0.394), seroprotection (p = 0.08), GMT (p = 0.573) and the FI in the GMT (p = 0.496) were similar in both groups. The disease and muscle parameters remained stable throughout the study, including the creatine kinase (p = 0.20) and aldolase levels (p = 0.98), the physicians' VAS (p = 1.00), the patients' VAS (p = 1.00) and the MMT-8 (p = 1.00). Regarding the influence of treatment, the seroconversion rates were comparable between the controls and patients undergoing treatment with glucocorticoid (GC) (p = 0.969), GC >0.5 mg/kg/day (p = 0.395) and GC + immunosuppressors (p = 0.285). Vaccine-related adverse events were mild and similar in the DM/PM and control groups (p > 0.05). Our data support the administration of the pandemic influenza A H1N1/2009 vaccination in DM/PM, as we found no short-term harmful effects related to the disease itself and adequate immunogenicity in spite of therapy. Further studies are necessary to identify any long-term adverse effects in patients with these diseases.(c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

TNF blockers show distinct patterns of immune response to the pandemic influenza A H1N1 vaccine in inflammatory arthritis patients

Methods. One hundred and twenty patients (RA, n = 41; AS, n = 57; PsA, n = 22) on anti-TNF agents (monoclonal, n = 94; soluble receptor, n = 26) were compared with 116 inflammatory arthritis patients under DMARDs and 117 healthy controls. Seroprotection, seroconversion (SC), geometric mean titre, factor increase in geometric mean titre and adverse events were evaluated 21 days after vaccination. Results. After immunization, SC rates (58.2% vs 74.3%, P = 0.017) were significantly lower in SpA patients receiving anti-TNF therapy, whereas no difference was observed in RA patients receiving this therapy compared with healthy controls (P = 0.067). SpA patients receiving mAbs (infliximab/adalimumab) had a significantly lower SC rate compared with healthy controls (51.6% vs 74.3%, P = 0.002) or those on DMARDs (51.6% vs 74.7%, P = 0.005), whereas no difference was observed for patients on etanercept (86.7% vs 74.3%, P = 0.091). Further analysis of non-seroconverting and seroconverting SpA patients revealed that the former group had a higher mean age (P = 0.003), a higher frequency of anti-TNF (P = 0.031) and mAbs (P = 0.001) and a lower frequency of MTX (P = 0.028). In multivariate logistic regression, only older age (P = 0.015) and mAb treatment (P = 0.023) remained significant factors for non-SC in SpA patients. Conclusion. This study revealed a distinct disease pattern of immune response to the pandemic influenza vaccine in inflammatory arthritis patients receiving anti-TNF agents, illustrated by a reduced immunogenicity solely in SpA patients using mAbs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="www.clinicaltrials.gov" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01151644.

Referral to an Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Center and Mortality Among Patients With Severe 2009 Influenza A(H1N1)

Context Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can support gas exchange in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but its role has remained controversial. ECMO was used to treat patients with ARDS during the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic.

Characteristics of Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Infected with the 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Virus

Background and objectives: There have been few studies investigating acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients infected with the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus. Therefore, the objective of this study was to identify the factors associated with AKI in H1N1-infected patients. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: This was a study of 47 consecutive critically ill adult patients with reverse transcriptase-PCR-confirmed H1N1 infection in Brazil. Outcome measures were AKI (as defined by the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage renal failure [RIFLE] criteria) and in-hospital death. Results: AKI was identified in 25 (53%) of the 47 H1N1-infected patients. AKI was associated with vasopressor use, mechanical ventilation, high Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores, and severe acidosis as well as with higher levels of C-reactive protein and lactic dehydrogenase upon intensive care unit (ICU) admission. A nephrology consultation was requested for 16 patients (64%), and 8 (50%) required dialysis. At ICU admission, 7 (15%) of the 25 AKI patients had not yet progressed to AKI. However, by 72 hours after ICU admission, no difference in RIFLE score was found between AKI survivors and nonsurvivors. Of the 47 patients, 9 (19%) died, all with AKI. Mortality was associated with mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, dialysis, high APACHE II score, high bilirubin levels, and a low RIFLE score at ICU admission. Conclusions: Among critically ill H1N1-infected patients, the incidence of AKI is high. In such patients, AKI is mainly attributable to shock. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 1916-1921, 2010. doi: 10.2215/CJN.00840110

Severity assessment tools in ICU patients with 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pneumonia.

The aim of this study was to determine if severity assessment tools (general severity of illness and community-acquired pneumonia specific scores) can be used to guide decisions for patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) due to pandemic influenza A pneumonia. A prospective, observational, multicentre study included 265 patients with a mean age of 42 (±16.1) years and an ICU mortality of 31.7%. On admission to the ICU, the mean pneumonia severity index (PSI) score was 103.2 ± 43.2 points, the CURB-65 score was 1.7 ± 1.1 points and the PIRO-CAP score was 3.2 ± 1.5 points. None of the scores had a good predictive ability: area under the ROC for PSI, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.78); CURB-65, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.59-0.74); and PIRO-CAP, 0.64 (95% CI, 0.56-0.71). The PSI score (OR, 1.022 (1.009-1.034), p 0.001) was independently associated with ICU mortality; however, none of the three scores, when used at ICU admission, were able to reliably detect a low-risk group of patients. Low risk for mortality was identified in 27.5% of patients using PIRO-CAP, but above 40% when using PSI (I-III) or CURB65 (<2). Observed mortality was 13.7%, 13.5% and 19.4%, respectively. Pneumonia-specific scores undervalued severity and should not be used as instruments to guide decisions in the ICU.

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.

Influenza A(H1N1) infection and severe cardiac dysfunction in adults: A case series

BACKGROUND: While viral myocarditis and heart failure are recognized and feared complications of seasonal influenza A infection, only limited information is available for 2009 influenza A(H1N1)-induced heart failure. METHODS AND MAIN FINDINGS: This case series summarizes the disease course of four patients with 2009 influenza A(H1N1) infection who were treated at our institution from November 2009 until September 2010. All patients presented with severe cardiac dysfunction (acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation) as the leading symptom of influenza A(H1N1) infection. Two patients most likely had pre-existent cardiac pathologies, and three required catecholamine therapy to maintain hemodynamic function. Except for one patient who died before influenza A(H1N1) infection had been diagnosed, all patients received antiviral therapy with oseltamivir and supportive critical care. Acute respiratory distress syndrome due to influenza A(H1N1) infection developed in one patient. Heart function normalized in two of the three surviving patients but remained impaired in the other one at hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza A(H1N1) infection may be associated with severe cardiac dysfunction which can even be the leading clinical symptom at presentation. During an influenza pandemic, a thorough history may reveal flu-like symptoms and should indicate testing for H1N1 infection also in critically ill patients with acute heart failure.

Influenza A H1N1/2009 vaccine in juvenile dermatomyositis: reduced immunogenicity in patients under immunosuppressive therapy

Objectives The aim of the present paper is to assess the influence of demographic, muscle enzymes, JDM scores and treatment on non-adjuvanted influenza A H1N1/2009 vaccine immunogenicity in juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) patients. Methods Thirty JDM patients and 81 healthy age-matched controls were vaccinated. All participants were evaluated pre- and 21 days post-vaccination and serology for anti-HI NI was performed by haemagglutination inhibition assay. Muscle enzymes, JDM scores and treatment were evaluated before and after vaccination. Adverse events were reported. Results After immunisation seroconversion rates were significantly lower in JDM patients compared to age-matched controls (86.7 vs. 97.5%, p=0.044), whereas seropmtection (p=0.121), geometric mean titres (GMT) (p=0.992) and factor increase (FI) in GMT (p=0.827) were similar in both groups. Clinical and labomtorial evaluations revealed that JDM scores and muscle enzymes remained stable throughout the study (p>0.05). A higher frequency of chronic course was observed in non-seroconverted compared to seroconverted (100% vs. 27%, p=0.012). Regarding treatment, a lower rate of seroconversion was observed in patients under prednisone>20mg/day (50% vs. 4%, p=0.039), and in those treated with a combination of prednisone, methotrexate and cyclosporine (50% vs. 4%, p=0.039). Local and systemic vaccine adverse events were mild and similar in patients and controls (p>0.05). Conclusion This study identified that chronic course and immunosuppressive therapy are the major factors hampering seroconversion was JDM, suggesting that a specific protocol may be required for this subgroup of patients. In spite of that, a single dose of non-adjuvanted influenza A/H1N1 2009 vaccine was generally seroprotective in this disease with no evident deleterious effect in disease itself (ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01151644).

Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza Outbreak in Australia: Impact on Emergency Departments.

Executive summary Objective: The aims of this study were to identify the impact of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza on Australian Emergency Departments (EDs) and their staff, and to inform planning, preparedness, and response management arrangements for future pandemics, as well as managing infectious patients presenting to EDs in everyday practice. Methods This study involved three elements: 1. The first element of the study was an examination of published material including published statistics. Standard literature research methods were used to identify relevant published articles. In addition, data about ED demand was obtained from Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) publications, with several state health departments providing more detailed data. 2. The second element of the study was a survey of Directors of Emergency Medicine identified with the assistance of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM). This survey retrieved data about demand for ED services and elicited qualitative comments on the impact of the pandemic on ED management. 3. The third element of the study was a survey of ED staff. A questionnaire was emailed to members of three professional colleges—the ACEM; the Australian College of Emergency Nursing (ACEN); and the College of Emergency Nursing Australasia (CENA). The overall response rate for the survey was 18.4%, with 618 usable responses from 3355 distributed questionnaires. Topics covered by the survey included ED conditions during the (H1N1) 2009 influenza pandemic; information received about Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza; pandemic plans; the impact of the pandemic on ED staff with respect to stress; illness prevention measures; support received from others in work role; staff and others’ illness during the pandemic; other factors causing ED staff to miss work during the pandemic; and vaccination against Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analysed. Results: The results obtained from Directors of Emergency Medicine quantifying the impact of the pandemic were too limited for interpretation. Data sourced from health departments and published sources demonstrated an increase in influenza-like illness (ILI) presentations of between one and a half and three times the normal level of presentations of ILIs. Directors of Emergency Medicine reported a reasonable level of preparation for the pandemic, with most reporting the use of pandemic plans that translated into relatively effective operational infection control responses. Directors reported a highly significant impact on EDs and their staff from the pandemic. Growth in demand and related ED congestion were highly significant factors causing distress within the departments. Most (64%) respondents established a ‘flu clinic’ either as part of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza Outbreak in Australia: Impact on Emergency Departments. the ED operations or external to it. They did not note a significantly higher rate of sick leave than usual. Responses relating to the impact on staff were proportional to the size of the colleges. Most respondents felt strongly that Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza had a significant impact on demand in their ED, with most patients having low levels of clinical urgency. Most respondents felt that the pandemic had a negative impact on the care of other patients, and 94% revealed some increase in stress due to lack of space for patients, increased demand, and filling staff deficits. Levels of concern about themselves or their family members contracting the illness were less significant than expected. Nurses displayed significantly higher levels of stress overall, particularly in relation to skill-mix requirements, lack of supplies and equipment, and patient and patients’ family aggression. More than one-third of respondents became ill with an ILI. Whilst respondents themselves reported taking low levels of sick leave, respondents cited difficulties with replacing absent staff. Ranked from highest to lowest, respondents gained useful support from ED colleagues, ED administration, their hospital occupational health department, hospital administration, professional colleges, state health department, and their unions. Respondents were generally positive about the information they received overall; however, the volume of information was considered excessive and sometimes inconsistent. The media was criticised as scaremongering and sensationalist and as being the cause of many unnecessary presentations to EDs. Of concern to the investigators was that a large proportion (43%) of respondents did not know whether a pandemic plan existed for their department or hospital. A small number of staff reported being redeployed from their usual workplace for personal risk factors or operational reasons. As at the time of survey (29 October –18 December 2009), 26% of ED staff reported being vaccinated against Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza. Of those not vaccinated, half indicated they would ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ not get vaccinated, with the main reasons being the vaccine was ‘rushed into production’, ‘not properly tested’, ‘came out too late’, or not needed due to prior infection or exposure, or due to the mildness of the disease. Conclusion: Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza had a significant impact on Australian Emergency Departments. The pandemic exposed problems in existing plans, particularly a lack of guidelines, general information overload, and confusion due to the lack of a single authoritative information source. Of concern was the high proportion of respondents who did not know if their hospital or department had a pandemic plan. Nationally, the pandemic communication strategy needs a detailed review, with more engagement with media networks to encourage responsible and consistent reporting. Also of concern was the low level of immunisation, and the low level of intention to accept vaccination. This is a problem seen in many previous studies relating to seasonal influenza and health care workers. The design of EDs needs to be addressed to better manage infectious patients. Significant workforce issues were confronted in this pandemic, including maintaining appropriate staffing levels; staff exposure to illness; access to, and appropriate use of, personal protective equipment (PPE); and the difficulties associated with working in PPE for prolonged periods. An administrative issue of note was the reporting requirement, which created considerable additional stress for staff within EDs. Peer and local support strategies helped ensure staff felt their needs were provided for, creating resilience, dependability, and stability in the ED workforce. Policies regarding the establishment of flu clinics need to be reviewed. The ability to create surge capacity within EDs by considering staffing, equipment, physical space, and stores is of primary importance for future pandemics.

Factors associated with 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccination acceptance among university students from India during the post-pandemic phase

Background: There was a low adherence to influenza A (H1N1) vaccination program among university students and health care workers during the pandemic influenza in many parts of the world. Vaccination of high risk individuals is one of the recommendations of World Health Organization during the post-pandemic period. It is not documented about the student's knowledge, attitude and willingness to accept H1N1 vaccination during the post-pandemic period. We aimed to analyze the student's knowledge, attitude and willingness to accept H1N1 vaccination during the post-pandemic period in India. Methods: Vaccine against H1N1 was made available to the students of Vellore Institute of Technology, India from September 2010. The data are based on a cross-sectional study conducted during October 2010 to January 2011 using a self-administered questionnaire with a representative sample of the student population (N = 802). Results: Of the 802 respondents, only 102/802 (12.7%) had been vaccinated and 105/802 (13%) planned to do so in the future, while 595/802 (74%) would probably or definitely not get vaccinated in the future. The highest coverage was among the female (65/102, 63.7%) and non-compliance was higher among men in the group (384/595; 64.5%) (p < 0.0001). The representation of students from school of Bio-sciences and Bio-technology among vaccinees is significantly higher than that of other schools. Majority of the study population from the three groups perceived vaccine against H1N1 as the effective preventive measure when compared to other preventive measures. 250/595 (42%) of the responders argued of not being in the risk group. The risk perception was significantly higher among female (p < 0.0001). With in the study group, 453/802 (56.4%) said that they got the information, mostly from media. Conclusions: Our study shows that the vaccination coverage among university students remains very low in the post-pandemic period and doubts about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine are key elements in their rejection. Our results indicate a need to provide accessible information about the vaccine safety by scientific authorities and fill gaps and confusions in this regard.