A review of human circulatory system simulation: Bridging the gap between engineering and medicine

(1) Background: Simulation-based training (SBT) is the practice of using hands-on training to immerse learners in a risk-free and high-fidelity environment. SBT is used in various fields due to its risk-free benefits from a safety and an economic perspective. In addition, SBT provides immersive training unmatched by traditional teaching the interactive visualization needed in particular scenarios. Medical SBT is a prevalent practice as it allows for a platform for learners to learn in a risk-free and cost-effective environment, especially in critical care, as mistakes could easily cause fatalities. An essential category of care is human circulatory system care (HCSC), which includes essential-to-simulate complications such as cardiac arrest. (2) Methods: In this paper, a deeper look onto existing human circulatory system medical SBT is presented to assess and highlight the important features that should be present with a focus on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cannulation (ECMO) simulators and cardiac catheterization. (3) Results: A list of features is also suggested for an ideal simulator to bridge the gap between medical studies and simulator engineering, followed by a case study of an ECMO SBT system design. (4) Conclusions: A collection and discussion of existing work for HCSC SBT are portrayed as a guide for researchers and practitioners to compare existing SBT and recreating them effectively. 2021 by the authors.Acknowledgments: This publication was made possible by an Award (GSRA6-2-0418-19015) from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of the Qatar Foundation). The contents herein are solely the responsibility of the authors. This publication was also supported by Qatar University Internal Grant No. M-CTP-CENG-2020-1. The findings achieved herein are solely the responsibility of the authors.Scopu

Detection of Antinuclear Antibodies Targeting Intracellular Signal Transduction, Metabolism, Apoptotic Processes and Cell Death in Critical COVID-19 Patients

Background and Objectives: The heterogeneity of the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) lies within its diverse symptoms and severity, ranging from mild to lethal. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a leading cause of mortality in COVID-19 patients, characterized by a hyper cytokine storm. Autoimmunity is proposed to occur as a result of COVID-19, given the high similarity of the immune responses observed in COVID-19 and autoimmune diseases. Here, we investigate the level of autoimmune antibodies in COVID-19 patients with different severities. Results: Initial screening for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) IgG using ELISA revealed that 1.58% (2/126) and 4% (5/126) of intensive care unit (ICU) COVID-19 cases expressed strong and moderate ANA levels, respectively. An additional sample was positive with immunofluorescence assays (IFA) screening. However, all the non-ICU cases (n=273) were ANA negative using both assays. Samples positive for ANA were further confirmed with large-scale autoantibody screening by phage immunoprecipitation-sequencing (PhIP-Seq). The majority of the ANA-positive samples showed "speckled" ANA pattern by microscopy and revealed autoantibody specificities that targeted proteins involved in intracellular signal transduction, metabolism, apoptotic processes, and cell death by PhIP-Seq; further denoting reactivity to nuclear and cytoplasmic antigens. Conclusion: Our results further support the notion of routine screening for autoimmune responses in COVID-19 patients, which might help improve disease prognosis and patient management. Further, results provide compelling evidence that ANA-positive individuals should be excluded from being donors for convalescent plasma therapy in the context of COVID-19.This study was supported by funds from QNRF, grant # NPRP11S-1212-170092

Assessment of Broadly Reactive Responses in Patients With MERS-CoV Infection and SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination

Importance: In the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there remain unanswered questions regarding the nature and importance of the humoral immune response against other coronaviruses. Although coinfection of the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) with the SARS-CoV-2 has not been documented yet, several patients previously infected with MERS-CoV received the COVID-19 vaccine; data describing how preexisting MERS-CoV immunity may shape the response to SARS-CoV-2 following infection or vaccination are lacking. Objective: To characterize the cross-reactive and protective humoral responses in patients exposed to both MERS-CoV infection and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study involved a total of 18 sera samples collected from 14 patients with MERS-CoV infection before (n = 12) and after (n = 6) vaccination with 2 doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273). Of those patients, 4 had prevaccination and postvaccination samples. Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV were assessed as well as cross-reactive responses to other human coronaviruses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes measured were binding antibody responses, neutralizing antibodies, and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) activity. Binding antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2 main antigens (spike [S], nucleocapsid, and receptor-binding domain) were detected using automated immunoassays. Cross-reactive antibodies with the S1 protein of SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and common human coronaviruses were analyzed using a bead-based assay. Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 as well as ADCC activity against SARS-CoV-2 were assessed. Results: A total of 18 samples were collected from 14 male patients with MERS-CoV infection (mean [SD] age, 43.8 [14.6] years). Median (IQR) duration between primary COVID-19 vaccination and sample collection was 146 (47-189) days. Prevaccination samples had high levels of anti-MERS S1 immunoglobin M (IgM) and IgG (reactivity index ranging from 0.80 to 54.7 for IgM and from 0.85 to 176.3 for IgG). Cross-reactive antibodies with SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 were also detected in these samples. However, cross-reactivity against other coronaviruses was not detected by the microarray assay. Postvaccination samples showed significantly higher levels of total antibodies, IgG, and IgA targeting SARS-CoV-2 S protein compared with prevaccination samples (eg, mean total antibodies: 8955.0 AU/mL; 95% CI, -5025.0 to 22936.0 arbitrary units/mL; P =.002). In addition, significantly higher anti-SARS S1 IgG levels were detected following vaccination (mean reactivity index, 55.4; 95% CI, -9.1 to 120.0; P =.001), suggesting potential cross-reactivity with these coronaviruses. Also, anti-S NAbs were significantly boosted against SARS-CoV-2 (50.5% neutralization; 95% CI, 17.6% to 83.2% neutralization; P <.001) after vaccination. Furthermore, there was no significant increase in antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity against SARS-CoV-2 S protein postvaccination. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found a significant boost in cross-reactive NAbs in some patients exposed to MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 antigens. These findings suggest that isolation of broadly reactive antibodies from these patients may help guide the development of a pancoronavirus vaccine by targeting cross-reactive epitopes between distinct strains of human coronaviruses..This work was supported by internal funds from the Biomedical Research Center of Qatar University. Dr Nasrallah received funding from The WHO Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office (WHO-EMRO) Special Grant for COVID-19 Research

Performance evaluation of five ELISA kits for detecting anti-SARS-COV-2 IgG antibodies

ObjectivesTo evaluate and compare the performances of five commercial ELISA assays (EDI, AnshLabs, Dia.Pro, NovaTec, and Lionex) for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. Methods70 negative control samples (collected before the COVID-19 pandemic) and samples from 101 RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected at different time points from symptoms onset: ≤7, 8-14, and >14 days) were used to compare the sensitivity, specificity, agreement, positive and negative predictive values of each assay with RT-PCR. A concordance assessment between the five assays was also conducted. Cross-reactivity with other HCoV, non-HCoV respiratory viruses, non-respiratory viruses, and nuclear antigens was investigated. ResultsLionex showed the highest specificity (98.6%, 95%CI: 92.3-99.8), followed by EDI and Dia.Pro (97.1%, 95%CI: 90.2-99.2), NovaTec (85.7%, 95%CI: 75.7-92.1), then AnshLabs (75.7%, 95%CI: 64.5-84.2). All ELISA kits cross-reacted with one anti-MERS IgG positive sample except Lionex. The sensitivity was low during the early stages of the disease but improved over time. After 14 days from symptoms onset, Lionex and NovaTec showed the highest sensitivity at 87.9% (95%CI: 72.7-95.2) and 86.4% (95%CI: 78.5-91.7), respectively. The agreement with RT-PCR results based on Cohen’s kappa was as follows: Lionex (0.89)> NovaTec (0.70)> Dia.Pro (0.69)> AnshLabs (0.63)> EDI (0.55). ConclusionThe Lionex ELISA, which measures antibodies solely to the S1 protein, demonstrated the best performance.This work was made possible by grant No. RRC-2-032 from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation). The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors. GKN would like to acknowledge funds from Qatar University's internal grant QUERG-CMED-2020-2

Prognostic tools and candidate drugs based on plasma proteomics of patients with severe COVID-19 complications

COVID-19 complications still present a huge burden on healthcare systems and warrant predictive risk models to triage patients and inform early intervention. Here, we profile 893 plasma proteins from 50 severe and 50 mild-moderate COVID-19 patients, and 50 healthy controls, and show that 375 proteins are differentially expressed in the plasma of severe COVID-19 patients. These differentially expressed plasma proteins are implicated in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and present targets for candidate drugs to prevent or treat severe complications. Based on the plasma proteomics and clinical lab tests, we also report a 12-plasma protein signature and a model of seven routine clinical tests that validate in an independent cohort as early risk predictors of COVID-19 severity and patient survival. The risk predictors and candidate drugs described in our study can be used and developed for personalized management of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. 2022, The Author(s).The authors would like to thank all the patients, volunteers, and the healthcare co-workers from Allergy and Immunology Section-HMC, and Dr. Mohamed G.H. Mohamedali, Mr. Hassen Maatoug, and Mr. Ahmed Soliman from Hezm Mebairek General Hospital-HMC for developing disposable racks for samples transportation, tubes labeling, blood collection, and handling. We thank the support provided by Qatar University Biomedical Research Centre, Biosafety Level 3, and Associate Professor Hadi M. Yassine (M.Sc., Ph.D.). We also acknowledge the help of the Anti-Doping Lab-Qatar (ADLQ) and Qatar Red Crescent (QRC) for recruiting control samples. This work was supported by a grant fund from Hamad Medical Corporation (fund number MRC-05-003) and core funding from Qatar Biomedical Research Institute (QBRI).Scopu

Impact of early enteral versus parenteral nutrition on mortality in patients requiring mechanical ventilation and catecholamines: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (NUTRIREA-2)

BACKGROUND: Nutritional support is crucial to the management of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and the most commonly prescribed treatment in intensive care units (ICUs). International guidelines consistently indicate that enteral nutrition (EN) should be preferred over parenteral nutrition (PN) whenever possible and started as early as possible. However, no adequately designed study has evaluated whether a specific nutritional modality is associated with decreased mortality. The primary goal of this trial is to assess the hypothesis that early first-line EN, as compared to early first-line PN, decreases day 28 all-cause mortality in patients receiving IMV and vasoactive drugs for shock. METHODS/DESIGN: The NUTRIREA-2 study is a multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial comparing early PN versus early EN in critically ill patients requiring IMV for an expected duration of at least 48 hours, combined with vasoactive drugs, for shock. Patients will be allocated at random to first-line PN for at least 72 hours or to first-line EN. In both groups, nutritional support will be started within 24 hours after IMV initiation. Calorie targets will be 20 to 25 kcal/kg/day during the first week, then 25 to 30 kcal/kg/day thereafter. Patients receiving PN may be switched to EN after at least 72 hours in the event of shock resolution (no vasoactive drugs for 24 consecutive hours and arterial lactic acid level below 2 mmol/L). On day 7, all patients receiving PN and having no contraindications to EN will be switched to EN. In both groups, supplemental PN may be added to EN after day 7 in patients with persistent intolerance to EN and inadequate calorie intake. We plan to recruit 2,854 patients at 44 participating ICUs. DISCUSSION: The NUTRIREA-2 study is the first large randomized controlled trial designed to assess the hypothesis that early EN improves survival compared to early PN in ICU patients. Enrollment started on 22 March 2013 and is expected to end in November 2015. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01802099 (registered 27 February 2013)

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P &lt; 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

Evaluation of the risk of acute kidney injury with the use of piperacillin/tazobactam among adult critically ill patients

Purpose Piperacillin/tazobactam (PT), when combined with vancomycin, is associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). It is not known whether PT alone is associated with a higher incidence of AKI compared to other β-lactams among critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of AKI associated with the use of PT to other β-lactams among adult critically ill patients Methods This retrospective study was conducted in the surgical and the medical intensive care units at two hospitals within Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC) in Qatar and included adult critically ill patients who received at least one dose of anti-pseudomonal β-lactams. The primary outcome was acute kidney injury, defined using the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. Multiple logistic regression with adjustment for pre-specified potential confounders was used for the primary outcome analysis. Results A total of 669 patients were included in the analysis: 507 patients in the PT group and 162 patients in the control (meropenem/cefepime) group. AKI occurred in 136 (26.8%) members of the PT group and 38 (23.5%) members of the control group [odds ratio (OR) 1.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79–1.8]. The results were not significantly altered after adjusting for the pre-specified potential confounders (adjusted OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.88–2.15). Conclusion In this study, PT was not associated with a higher risk of AKI compared to cefepime or meropenem among adult critically ill patients.Other Information Published in: Infection License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0See article on publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s15010-020-01480-x</p

Evaluation of Antibody Response in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic COVID-19 Patients and Diagnostic Assessment of New IgM/IgG ELISA Kits

This study aims to study the immune response and evaluate the performances of four new IgM and five IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits for detecting anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies against different antigens in symptomatic and asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. A total of 291 samples collected from symptomatic and asymptomatic RT–PCR-confirmed patients were used to evaluate the ELISA kits’ performance (EDI, AnshLabs, DiaPro, NovaLisa, and Lionex). The sensitivity was measured at three different time-intervals post symptoms onset or positive SARS-CoV-2 RT–PCR test (≤14, 14–30, >30 days). The specificity was investigated using 119 pre-pandemic serum samples. The sensitivity of all IgM kits gradually decreased with time, ranging from 48.7% (EDI)–66.4% (Lionex) at ≤14 days, 29.1% (NovaLisa)–61.8% (Lionex) at 14–30 days, and 6.0% (AnshLabs)–47.9% (Lionex) at >30 days. The sensitivity of IgG kits increased with time, peaking in the latest interval (>30 days) at 96.6% (Lionex). Specificity of IgM ranged from 88.2% (Lionex)–99.2% (EDI), while IgG ranged from 75.6% (DiaPro)–98.3% (Lionex). Among all RT–PCR-positive patients, 23 samples (7.9%) were seronegative by all IgG kits, of which only seven samples (30.4%) had detectable IgM antibodies. IgM assays have variable and low sensitivity, thus considered a poor marker for COVID-19 diagnosis. IgG assays can miss at least 8% of RT–PCR-positive cases