Having just got back from Coventry after an exforced exile for putting my mouth where silence should be. I have to be a bit more careful with what I say, as “I must not ruffle any more feathers“, Yes “I must not ruffle any more feathers”. I am on double secret probation. So I am happy to say I won’t be making certain posts on stuff that simply winds me up. Yep the balance may go but I will make an effort to not say “It is rubbish…throw it in the bin”
There have been a sea of COVID-19 papers, some people get themselves together to proclaim themselves experts….but what makes you an expert? You have written a few COVID-19 papers? You have had a few papers written for you by some medical writer and plonked on an ECTRIMS stage? ….Oops” “I must not ruffle any more feathers”..but if you don’t read the stuff, the things you write are out of date before it arrives. Each week, I sit though expert COVID-19 lectures and think all you are telling me is stuff I already know. I can read too. Importantly I have read more than you….Maybe I should be more self-assertive and write “expert review in big letters” on my next paper…but I’m too modest.
Actually as a disclaimer….I did not lauch this post, but it was a nudge by the gatekeeper to get back in the ring. It was not quite finished at the time of posting. There have now been 124,000 published papers in a year compared to 94,000 papers in MS. There are many more pre-prints and this is where the gold dust is lurking. You don’t need to speculate on what may or may not happen, the data is there. So, as for experts there are thousands of COVID experts. We will see a number of papers recommending vaccination schedules based on hypothetical data, but if you dig a bit deeper the data is there and these papers are going to be out of date, before they even surface. Some are going to prove that you have or haven’t quite got it right.
Data has already surfaced of vaccine responses in B cell depleted individuals and these authors are now the experts as they know something that the rest of us don’t. Get a gaggle of geese together to give a consensus and remember you can get a camel when you design a horse, or you can get common sense.
However, congrats to Israel for getting their SH1 together. Their data is surfacing and says do not worry too much about getting the Jab.
COVID-19 vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis: What we have learnt by February 2021.Achiron A, Dolev M, Menascu S, Zohar DN, Dreyer-Alster S, Miron S, Shirbint E, Magalashvili D, Flechter S, Givon U, Guber D, Stern Y, Polliack M, Falb R, Gurevich M.Mult Scler. 2021 Apr 15:13524585211003476. doi: 10.1177/13524585211003476.
Background: Since vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) became available, risks related to vaccinating patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) need to be carefully assessed.
Objective: Characterize safety and occurrence of immediate relapses following COVID-19 vaccination in a large cohort of MS patients.
Methods: We assessed the safety of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in adult MS patients.
Results: Between 20 December 2020 and 25 January 2021, 555 MS patients received the first dose of BNT162b2 vaccine and 435 received the second dose. There were three cases of COVID-19 infection encountered after the first dose. Safety profile of COVID-19 vaccine was characterized by pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. No increased risk of relapse activity was noted over a median follow-up of 20 and 38 days after first and second vaccine doses, respectively. The rate of patients with acute relapse was 2.1% and 1.6% following the first and second doses, respectively, similar to the rate in non-vaccinating patients during the corresponding period. Mild increase in the rate of adverse events was noted in younger patients (18-55 years), among patients with lower disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) ⩽3.0), and in patients treated with immunomodulatory drugs.
Conclusion: COVID-19 BNT162b2 vaccine proved safe for MS patients. No increased risk of relapse activity was noted.
Not quite 500 but so as you are aware
Allen-Philbey K, Stennett A, Begum T, Johnson AC, Dobson R, Giovannoni G, Gnanapavan S, Marta M, Smets I, Turner BP, Baker D, Mathews, Schmierer K. Experience with Oxford AstraZeneca vaccination against SARS-CoV2 in people with multiple sclerosis: Preprint
Background: Some people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) are at increased risk of severe
Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Use of the ChAdOx1nCoV-19 (Oxford AstraZeneca, OAZ)
vaccine in immunosuppressed individuals has been controversial.
Objectives: To report early experience of pwMS receiving OAZ vaccination.
Methods: pwMS using the service at Barts Health NHS Trust were sent questionnaires to
report symptoms following vaccination.
Results: Thirty-three responses were returned, 29/33 pwMS received the OAZ vaccination.
Side-effects were common and short-lived. No severe adverse effects occurred.
Conclusions: PwMS report transient symptoms following OAZ vaccination; which are in part
explained by Uhthoff’s phenomenon.