Objective To compare the humoral response after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) receiving different disease-modifying treatments (DMTs). Methods Patients with MS with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and available anti–SARS-CoV-2 serology were included. The primary endpoint was the anti–SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) index. The multivariate analysis was adjusted for COVID-19 severity, SARS-CoV-2 PCR result, and the time between COVID-19 onset and the serology. Results We included 61 patients with available IgG index. The IgG index was lower in patients with fingolimod or anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies compared with patients without treatment (p < 0.01), patients with interferon β-1a or glatiramer (p < 0.01), and patients with another DMT (p = 0.01). The IgG index was correlated with the time between COVID-19 onset and serology (r = −0.296 [−0.510; −0.0477], p = 0.02). Conclusions Humoral response after COVID-19 was lower in patients with MS with fingolimod or anti-CD20 mAb. These patients could therefore be at risk of recurrent infection and could benefit from anti–SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The humoral response after vaccination and the delay before vaccination need to be evaluated. Classification of Evidence This study provides Class IV evidence that patients treated with fingolimod or anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies for MS have a lower humoral response after COVID-19 compared with patients without DMTs or with another DMTs.

There is currently not sufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of face shields for source control. In order to evaluate the comparative barrier performance effect of face masks and face shields, we used an aerosol generator and a particle counter to evaluate the performance of the various devices in comparable situations. We tested different configurations in an experimental setup with manikin heads wearing masks (surgical type I), face shields (22.5 cm high with overhang under the chin of 7 cm and circumference of 35 cm) on an emitter or a receiver manikin head, or both. The manikins were face to face, 25 cm apart, with an intense particle emission (52.5 L/min) for 30 s. The particle counter calculated the total cumulative particles aspirated on a volume of 1.416 L In our experimental conditions, when the receiver alone wore a protection, the face shield was more effective (reduction factor = 54.8%), while reduction was lower with a mask (reduction factor = 21.8%) (p = 0.002). The wearing of a protective device by the emitter alone reduced the level of received particles by 96.8% for both the mask and face shield (p = NS). When both the emitter and receiver manikin heads wore a face shield, the protection allowed for better results in our experimental conditions: 98% reduction for the face shields versus 97.3% for the masks (p = 0.01). Face shields offered an even better barrier effect than the mask against small inhaled particles (<0.3 µm–0.3 to 0.5 µm–0.5 to 1 µm) in all configurations. Therefore, it would be interesting to include face shields as used in our experimental study as part of strategies to reduce transmission within the community setting.

The sensitivity of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been questioned due to negative results in some patients who were strongly suspected of having coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of our study was to analyze the prognosis of infected patients with initial negative RT-PCR in the emergency department (ED) during the COVID-19 outbreak. This study included two cohorts of adult inpatients admitted into the ED. All patients who were suspected to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 and who underwent a typical chest CT imaging were included. Thus, we studied two distinct cohorts: patients with positive RT-PCR (PCR+) and those with negative initial RT-PCR (PCR–). The data were analyzed using Bayesian methods. We included 66 patients in the PCR– group and 198 in the PCR+ group. The baseline characteristics did not differ except in terms of a proportion of lower chronic respiratory disease in the PCR– group. We noted a less severe clinical presentation in the PCR– group (lower respiratory rate, lower oxygen need and mechanical ventilation requirement). Hospital mortality (9.1% vs. 9.6%) did not differ between the two groups. Despite an initially less serious clinical presentation, the mortality of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 with a negative RT-PCR did not differ from those with positive RT-PCR.

Preoperative physical activity and early postoperative mobilization are key components of enhanced recovery programs but both difficult to assess. The aim of this prospective study was therefore to compare different ways to measure preoperative physical activity and to correlate those tests with postoperative physical activity (footsteps). The daily number of footsteps was recorded from preoperative day 5 to postoperative day (POD) 3 in a prospective cohort of colorectal patients using connected wrist bracelets. Timed Up-and-Go Test (TUGT) and 6-Minutes Walking Test (6MWT) were assessed preoperatively. Pearson correlation and multivariable regression were used to study the predictive potential of these tests for postoperative footsteps. A total of 50 patients were included. Mean number of preoperative and postoperative footsteps were 6163 (SD 4274) and 1183 (SD 1828), respectively. There was no correlation between preoperative footsteps and preoperative tests (TUGT and 6MWT) as well as between preoperative tests (TUGT and 6MWT) and postoperative footsteps. Postoperative physical activity was significantly correlated with mean number of preoperative footsteps (Rho = 0.527, IC 95 [0.28;0.709]; p < 0.001). Thereby, preoperative footsteps measurement was the only tool permitting to predict postoperative footsteps. Other preoperative tests as TUGT and 6MWT could not predict immediate postoperative physical activity.

Background: We aimed to evaluate the value of the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score as a prognostic factor in RA in the prospective ESPOIR cohort. Methods: We included patients from the ESPOIR cohort with a diagnosis of RA according to ACR/EULAR criteria. The formula for the FIB-4 score is as follows: [age (years) × aspartate transaminase level (U/L)]/[platelet count (10⁹/L) × alanine aminotransferase level (U/L)^1/2]. We used a linear mixed-effects model with a random effect of patient to account for repeated measures over time. Results: Overall, 647 of the 813 patients included met the ACR/EULAR criteria for RA, with no differential diagnosis during the first 10 years of follow-up. Of these patients, at baseline, 633 had a calculable FIB-4 score. Median FIB-4 score was 0.75 (interquartile range 0.53–0.99). On multivariate analysis, FIB-4 score was not independently associated with progression of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints over 10 years of follow-up, unlike baseline C-reactive protein level and SJC. Baseline FIB-4 score was not associated with the modified Sharp score at 5-year follow-up, unlike age and ACPAs. FIB-4 score was not associated with mortality (hazard ratio 1.1 [95% CI 0.46; 2.8], p = 0.77) or major adverse cardiovascular events (0.46 [0.13; 1.6], p = 0.22) over the 10-year follow-up. No significant change in FIB-4 score over time was related to treatments. Conclusions: The present prospective cohort study did not find a prognostic role of FIB-4 score in RA. Reassuringly, FIB-4 score was not increased with DMARD treatment after 10 years of follow-up.