Journal-Clubbing Our Way Through Internal Medicine
Do you also find it hard to follow the medical literature?
Newsletters with tables of contents are hard to get through after having written all your notes and maybe having done a chart dissection.
Welcome to IM Journal Club!
Our mission: to guide you through some of the most interesting internal medicine studies published in the last few weeks and months that you WOULD have liked to or SHOULD have heard about
Target groups: physicians and other clinicians in general internal or family medicine – hospital medicine and primary care – or in an internal medicine subspecialty; biostatisticians, epidemiologists, or data scientists; journal club enthusiasts!
Hidden agenda: to shed some lights on the studies’ methods AND on the context (what was known before, how do the new results change things – so what does this all mean?). We will give you episodes with primers on particularly difficult methods.
We will come out with a new episode every one to two weeks - we'll upload early on Fridays - so you can listen on your commute or on the weekend.
Please subscribe in your favorite podcast app or to our YouTube channel .
Please let us know what we can do better, or what new study we could cover: You can leave a review in your podcasting app, a comment on YouTube, or drop us a line at hello@imjournalclub.com
We are also on social; our email newsletter will be on Twitter: https://twitter.com/IMJournalClub
---
Show Credits
Host: Ben Geisler
Video editor: Fernando Tábora
Methods consultant: Professor Ulrich Mansmann
Advisory group (current): Bijay Acharya, Chang-Berm Kang, Jeffrey L. Greenwald, Jonathan W. Heflin, Kathy May Tran, Marcel Müller, Rahul Ganatra, and Warren Chuang
Supported by LMU Munich’s Institute for Epidemiology, Biometry, and Medical Information Processing
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Journal-Clubbing Our Way Through Internal Medicine
Do you also find it hard to follow the medical literature?
Newsletters with tables of contents are hard to get through after having written all your notes and maybe having done a chart dissection.
Welcome to IM Journal Club!
Our mission: to guide you through some of the most interesting internal medicine studies published in the last few weeks and months that you WOULD have liked to or SHOULD have heard about
Target groups: physicians and other clinicians in general internal or family medicine – hospital medicine and primary care – or in an internal medicine subspecialty; biostatisticians, epidemiologists, or data scientists; journal club enthusiasts!
Hidden agenda: to shed some lights on the studies’ methods AND on the context (what was known before, how do the new results change things – so what does this all mean?). We will give you episodes with primers on particularly difficult methods.
We will come out with a new episode every one to two weeks - we'll upload early on Fridays - so you can listen on your commute or on the weekend.
Please subscribe in your favorite podcast app or to our YouTube channel .
Please let us know what we can do better, or what new study we could cover: You can leave a review in your podcasting app, a comment on YouTube, or drop us a line at hello@imjournalclub.com
We are also on social; our email newsletter will be on Twitter: https://twitter.com/IMJournalClub
---
Show Credits
Host: Ben Geisler
Video editor: Fernando Tábora
Methods consultant: Professor Ulrich Mansmann
Advisory group (current): Bijay Acharya, Chang-Berm Kang, Jeffrey L. Greenwald, Jonathan W. Heflin, Kathy May Tran, Marcel Müller, Rahul Ganatra, and Warren Chuang
Supported by LMU Munich’s Institute for Epidemiology, Biometry, and Medical Information Processing
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In our first virtual journal club, we look at data on heterologous COVID booster shots or COVID booster jabs. Can you mix and match different version of the COVID vaccine?
COV-BOOST is a multicenter phase-II RCT from the U.K. that was published in December in the Lancet. Ref: Munro et al. Lancet . 2021 Dec 18;398(10318):2258-2276. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02717-3 https://bit.ly/COV-Boost
For patients who had received Oxford/AstraZeneca or Pfizer/BioNTech, it compared the the following boosters Oxford/AstraZeneca, Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna/NIH (100μg dose only), Johnson&Johnson/Janssen, CureVac, Novavax, and Valneva to active control groups.
Endpoints were biological activity/preliminary efficacy (anti-spike IgG at 28d - mean geometric ratios compared to pre-booster, neutralizing Abs against wild-type, pseudoviral neutralization, and T-cell response) as well as reactogenicity (solicited and unsolicited moderate and/or severe adverse events).
We go through what was known before, describe the study, summarize its results, critically appraise the methods, and mention what has been published since, in particular:
-Atmar et al NEJM 2022: D-MID-21-12 https://bit.ly/D-MID-21-12
-Clemens et al Lancet 2022: RHH-001 https://bit.ly/rhh-001
-Mayr et al NEJM 2022: VA research letter https://bit.ly/3I0CP1B
0:00 Intro and outline
1:10 What Was Known Before the Study?
2:31 Nuts and Bolts on COV-BOOST
3:57 What Was the Study Goal?
4:59 Which Combos of Boosters and Primary Series Were Studied?
9:02 Methods
10:32 (Some) baseline characteristics
11:12 Results - Antibody and T-cell concentrations
15:59 Results - Adverse Events
19:43 Results Summary
20:49 Critical Appraisal
22:44 What Has Been Published Since?
27:48 Q&A
35:00 Outro
Speaker: Ben Geisler
Video editor: Fernando Tábora
Date of recording: Feb 25, 2022
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.