Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Recent technical innovation enables faster and more reliable cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging than before.Artificial intelligence is used in improving image resolution, fast scanning, and automated analysis of CMR. Fast CMR techniques such as compressed sensing technique enable fast cine, perfusion, and late gadolinium-enhanced imaging and improve patient throughput and widening CMR indications. CMR feature-tracking technique gives insight on diastolic function parameters of ventricles and atria with prognostic implications. Myocardial parametric mapping became to be included in the routine CMR protocol. CMR fingerprinting enables simultaneous quantification of myocardial T1 and T2. These parameters may give information on myocardial alteration in the preclinical stages in various myocardial diseases. Four-dimensional flow imaging shows hemodynamic characteristics in or through the cardiovascular structures visually and gives quantitative values of vortex, kinetic energy, and wall-shear stress. In conclusion, CMR is an essential modality in the diagnosis of various cardiovascular diseases, especially myocardial diseases. Recent progress in CMR techniques promotes more widespread use of CMR in clinical practice. This review summarizes recent updates in CMR technologies and clinical research.

Recent technical innovation enables faster and more reliable cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging than before.Artificial intelligence is used in improving image resolution, fast scanning, and automated analysis of CMR. Fast CMR techniques such as compressed sensing technique enable fast cine, perfusion, and late gadolinium-enhanced imaging and improve patient throughput and widening CMR indications. CMR feature-tracking technique gives insight on diastolic function parameters of ventricles and atria with prognostic implications. Myocardial parametric mapping became to be included in the routine CMR protocol. CMR fingerprinting enables simultaneous quantification of myocardial T1 and T2. These parameters may give information on myocardial alteration in the preclinical stages in various myocardial diseases. Four-dimensional flow imaging shows hemodynamic characteristics in or through the cardiovascular structures visually and gives quantitative values of vortex, kinetic energy, and wall-shear stress. In conclusion, CMR is an essential modality in the diagnosis of various cardiovascular diseases, especially myocardial diseases. Recent progress in CMR techniques promotes more widespread use of CMR in clinical practice. This review summarizes recent updates in CMR technologies and clinical research.

Recent technical innovation enables faster and more reliable cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging than before.Artificial intelligence is used in improving image resolution, fast scanning, and automated analysis of CMR. Fast CMR techniques such as compressed sensing technique enable fast cine, perfusion, and late gadolinium-enhanced imaging and improve patient throughput and widening CMR indications. CMR feature-tracking technique gives insight on diastolic function parameters of ventricles and atria with prognostic implications. Myocardial parametric mapping became to be included in the routine CMR protocol. CMR fingerprinting enables simultaneous quantification of myocardial T1 and T2. These parameters may give information on myocardial alteration in the preclinical stages in various myocardial diseases. Four-dimensional flow imaging shows hemodynamic characteristics in or through the cardiovascular structures visually and gives quantitative values of vortex, kinetic energy, and wall-shear stress. In conclusion, CMR is an essential modality in the diagnosis of various cardiovascular diseases, especially myocardial diseases. Recent progress in CMR techniques promotes more widespread use of CMR in clinical practice. This review summarizes recent updates in CMR technologies and clinical research.

Recent technical innovation enables faster and more reliable cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging than before.Artificial intelligence is used in improving image resolution, fast scanning, and automated analysis of CMR. Fast CMR techniques such as compressed sensing technique enable fast cine, perfusion, and late gadolinium-enhanced imaging and improve patient throughput and widening CMR indications. CMR feature-tracking technique gives insight on diastolic function parameters of ventricles and atria with prognostic implications. Myocardial parametric mapping became to be included in the routine CMR protocol. CMR fingerprinting enables simultaneous quantification of myocardial T1 and T2. These parameters may give information on myocardial alteration in the preclinical stages in various myocardial diseases. Four-dimensional flow imaging shows hemodynamic characteristics in or through the cardiovascular structures visually and gives quantitative values of vortex, kinetic energy, and wall-shear stress. In conclusion, CMR is an essential modality in the diagnosis of various cardiovascular diseases, especially myocardial diseases. Recent progress in CMR techniques promotes more widespread use of CMR in clinical practice. This review summarizes recent updates in CMR technologies and clinical research.

Recent technical innovation enables faster and more reliable cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging than before.Artificial intelligence is used in improving image resolution, fast scanning, and automated analysis of CMR. Fast CMR techniques such as compressed sensing technique enable fast cine, perfusion, and late gadolinium-enhanced imaging and improve patient throughput and widening CMR indications. CMR feature-tracking technique gives insight on diastolic function parameters of ventricles and atria with prognostic implications. Myocardial parametric mapping became to be included in the routine CMR protocol. CMR fingerprinting enables simultaneous quantification of myocardial T1 and T2. These parameters may give information on myocardial alteration in the preclinical stages in various myocardial diseases. Four-dimensional flow imaging shows hemodynamic characteristics in or through the cardiovascular structures visually and gives quantitative values of vortex, kinetic energy, and wall-shear stress. In conclusion, CMR is an essential modality in the diagnosis of various cardiovascular diseases, especially myocardial diseases. Recent progress in CMR techniques promotes more widespread use of CMR in clinical practice. This review summarizes recent updates in CMR technologies and clinical research.