Relationship Between Bioimpedance Vector Displacement and Renal Function After a Marathon in Non-elite Runners

Purpose: This study investigates the relationship between whole-body bioimpedance vector displacement, using bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA), and renal function through serum biomarkers [creatinine, urea, sodium, C-reactive protein (CRP), and creatine kinase] and urine biomarkers after a marathon. Methods: Bioimpedance measurements were taken among 19 non-elite runners at 24 h pre-race, immediately post-race, and at 48 h post-race. The bioimpedance measurements were analyzed by BIVA using the Hotelling's T2 test. The runners were divided according to a cutoff of serum creatinine level immediately post-race in G1 (<1.2 mg/dl of serum creatinine level) and G2 (≥1.2 mg/dl of serum creatinine level). The increase of the serum creatinine levels in 83% of G2 runners was related to acute kidney injury (AKI) stage 1. Results: Neither G1 nor G2 showed a creatinine clearance rate (CCr) lower than 60 ml/min. G2 showed a significant increase in CRP values at 48 h post-race vs baseline compared to G1 (P < 0.05), with over 5 mg/L (6.8-15.2) in 92% of the runners, and in CK values with over 215 U/L (282-1,882) at 48 h post-race in 100% of the runners. By BIVA, the 95% confidence ellipses of G2 showed shorter bioimpedance vectors than G1, with a noticeable minor Xc/H (P < 0.01), indicating an expansion on extracellular water and inflammation. The runners with 48 h post-race Xc/H values ≤30.5 Ω, with a decrease from −3 to −12% with respect to the Xc/H value at 24 h pre-race, indicated AKI stage 1 with 85.7% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity, with a direct correlation between AKI stage 1 with greater CRP values at 48 h post-race and bioimpedance vector displacement, but not with CK values at 48 h post-race. Conclusion: Through this data collection, it was evidenced that a transient reduction in renal function is more related to inflammatory factors than muscle damage. The BIVA method along with serum biomarkers could be used to follow up the kidney function in runners

Immunological Pattern in IgA Nephropathy

The current gold-standard diagnostic technique for IgA nephropathy (IgAN), the leading form of primary glomerulonephritis, is renal biopsy. CD89 (the main IgA receptor) is expressed on the surface of monocytes and plays a role in disease pathogenesis. Immunocomplexes formed by sCD89 (soluble form) and Gd-IgA1 are related to disease prognosis. We hypothesize that reduced CD89 surface expression on monocytes may be a marker of disease severity. We aimed to analyze leukocyte subpopulations in peripheral blood and CD89 surface expression on monocytes in a prospective study of 22 patients and 12 healthy subjects (HS). Leukocyte subpopulations and CD89 expression were analyzed by flow cytometry. IgAN patients had a higher percentage of activated and effector memory CD4 + and CD8 + T lymphocytes, a lower percentage of transitional B lymphocytes and plasmablasts, and a higher percentage of CD56 dim CD16 + NK cells and myeloid dendritic cells compared with HS. Correlations between reduced CD89 expression levels on nonclassical monocytes, histological findings of a poor prognosis on renal biopsy and baseline renal function were observed. IgAN patients show a characteristic immunological pattern in peripheral blood. A reduced expression level of CD89 on nonclassical monocytes identifies patients with a worse renal prognosis

Reduced humoral response 3 months following BNT162b2 vaccination in SARS-CoV-2 uninfected residents of long-term care facilities

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is the most effective strategy to protect older residents of long-term care facilities (LTCF) against severe COVID-19, but primary vaccine responses are less effective in older adults. Here, we characterised the humoral responses of institutionalised seniors 3 months after they had received the mRNA/BNT162b2 vaccine. plasma levels of SARS-CoV-2-specific total IgG, IgM and IgA antibodies were measured before and 3 months after vaccination in older residents of LTCF. Neutralisation capacity was assessed in a pseudovirus neutralisation assay against the original WH1 and later B.1.617.2/Delta variants. A group of younger adults was used as a reference group. three months after vaccination, uninfected older adults presented reduced SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG levels and a significantly lower neutralisation capacity against the WH1 and Delta variants compared with vaccinated uninfected younger individuals. In contrast, COVID-19-recovered older adults showed significantly higher SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG levels after vaccination than their younger counterparts, whereas showing similar neutralisation activity against the WH1 virus and an increased neutralisation capacity against the Delta variant. Although, similarly to younger individuals, previously infected older adults elicit potent cross-reactive immune responses, higher quantities of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies are required to reach the same neutralisation levels. although hybrid immunity seems to be active in previously infected older adults 3 months after mRNA/BNT162b2 vaccination, humoral immune responses are diminished in COVID-19 uninfected but vaccinated older residents of LTCF. These results suggest that a vaccine booster dose should be prioritised for this particularly vulnerable population

Subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin for prevention of disease in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection : a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial

Anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIG) can provide standardized and controlled antibody content. Data from controlled clinical trials using hIG for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outpatients have not been reported. We assessed the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin 20% (C19-IG20%) compared to placebo in preventing development of symptomatic COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We did a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in asymptomatic unvaccinated adults (≥18 years of age) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days between April 28 and December 27, 2021. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a blinded subcutaneous infusion of 10 mL with 1 g or 2 g of C19-IG20%, or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who remained asymptomatic through day 14 after infusion. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of individuals who required oxygen supplementation, any medically attended visit, hospitalisation, or ICU, and viral load reduction and viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs. Safety was assessed as the proportion of patients with adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to a lack of potential benefit in the target population in a planned interim analysis conducted in December 2021. registry: . 461 individuals (mean age 39.6 years [SD 12.8]) were randomized and received the intervention within a mean of 3.1 (SD 1.27) days from a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a subcutaneous infusion, the primary outcome occurred in 59.9% (91/152) of participants receiving 1 g C19-IG20%, 64.7% (99/153) receiving 2 g, and 63.5% (99/156) receiving placebo (difference in proportions 1 g C19-IG20% vs. placebo, −3.6%; 95% CI -14.6% to 7.3%, p = 0.53; 2 g C19-IG20% vs placebo, 1.1%; −9.6% to 11.9%, p = 0.85). None of the secondary clinical efficacy endpoints or virological endpoints were significantly different between study groups. Adverse event rate was similar between groups, and no severe or life-threatening adverse events related to investigational product infusion were reported. Our findings suggested that administration of subcutaneous human hyperimmune immunoglobulin C19-IG20% to asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection was safe but did not prevent development of symptomatic COVID-19.

Evaluating Person-Centred Integrated Care to People with Complex Chronic Conditions: Early Implementation Results of the ProPCC Programme

Introduction: The evaluation of integrated care programmes for high-need high-cost older people is a challenge. We aim to share the early implementation results of the ProPCC programme in the North-Barcelona metropolitan area, in Catalonia, Spain. Methods: We analysed the intervention with retrospective data from May 2018 to December 2021 by describing the cohort complexity and by showing its 6-months pre-post impact on time spent at home and resources used: primary care visits, emergency department visits, hospital admissions and hospital stay. Findings: 264 cases were included (91% at home; 9% in nursing homes). 6-month pre vs. 6-months post results were (mean, p-value): primary care visits 8.2 vs. 11.5 (p < 0.05); emergency department visits 1.4 vs. 0.9 (p < 0.05); hospital admissions 0.7 vs. 0.5 (p < 0.05); hospital stay 12.8 vs. 7.9 days (p < 0.05). Time spent at home was 169.2 vs.174.2 days (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Early implementation of the ProPCC programme results in an increase in time spent at home (up to 3%) and significant reductions in emergency department attendance (–37.2%) and hospital stays (–38.3%). The increased use of primary care resources is compensated by the hospital resources savings, with a result in the average total cost of –46.3%

Implementation of a vascular access specialist team in a tertiary hospital: a cost-benefit analysis

Abstract Background The use of peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters is growing due to their potential benefits. These devices can increase patient safety and satisfaction while reducing the use of resources. As a result, many hospitals are establishing vascular access specialist teams staffed by nurses who are trained in the insertion and maintenance of these catheters. The objective of the study is to evaluate previously to the implementation whether the benefits of introducing ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheters, midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters compared to current practice by a vascular access specialist team outweigh their costs. Methods Cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the healthcare provider based on administrative data. The study estimates the reduction in resources used when changing the current practice for the use of ultrasound-guided midline and PICC catheters, as well as the additional resources required for their use. Results The use of an ultrasound-guided device on peripherally inserted central carheter, results in a measurable resource reduction of approximately €31. When 3 peripheral venous catheters are replaced by an ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheter, the saving is €63. Similarly, the use of an ultrasound-guided device on a midline catheter, results in a reduction of €16, while each ultrasound-guided midline catheter replacing 3 peripheral venous catheters results in a reduction of €96. Conclusion The benefits of using ultrasound-guided midline and PICC catheters compared to current practice by introducing a vascular access specialist team trained in the implantation of ultrasound-guided catheters, outweigh its cost mainly because of the decrease in hospital stay due to the lowered risk of phebitis. These results motivate the implementation of the service, adding to previous experience suggesting that it is also preferable from the point of view of patient safety and satisfaction

A cost-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 asymptomatic mass testing strategy in the north metropolitan area of Barcelona

Background: The epidemiological situation generated by COVID-19 has highlighted the importance of applying non-pharmacological measures in the management of the epidemic. Mass screening of the asymptomatic general population has been established as a priority strategy by carrying out diagnostic tests to detect possible cases, isolate contacts, cut transmission chains and thus limit the spread of the virus. Objective: To evaluate the economic impact of mass COVID-19 screenings of an asymptomatic population during the first and second wave of the epidemic in Catalonia, Spain. Methodology: Cost-Benefit Analysis based on the estimated total costs of mass screening versus health gains and associated health costs avoided. Results: Excluding the value of monetized health, the Benefit-Cost ratio was estimated at 0.45, a low value that would seem to advise against mass screening policies. However, if monetized health is included, the ratio is close to 1.20, reversing the interpretation. In other words, the monetization of health is the critical element that tips the scales in favour of the desirability of screening. Results show that the interventions with the highest return are those that maximize the percentage of positives detected. Conclusion: Efficient management of resources for the policy of mass screening in asymptomatic populations can generate high social returns. The positivity rate critically determines its desirability. Likewise, precocity in the detection of cases will cut more transmissions in the chain of contagion and increase the economic return of these interventions. Maximizing the value of resources depends on screening strategies being accompanied by contact-tracing and specific in their focus, targeting, for example, high-risk subpopulations with the highest rate of expected positives.Postprint (published version

Subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin for prevention of disease in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trialResearch in context

Summary: Background: Anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIG) can provide standardized and controlled antibody content. Data from controlled clinical trials using hIG for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outpatients have not been reported. We assessed the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin 20% (C19-IG20%) compared to placebo in preventing development of symptomatic COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We did a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in asymptomatic unvaccinated adults (≥18 years of age) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days between April 28 and December 27, 2021. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a blinded subcutaneous infusion of 10 mL with 1 g or 2 g of C19-IG20%, or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who remained asymptomatic through day 14 after infusion. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of individuals who required oxygen supplementation, any medically attended visit, hospitalisation, or ICU, and viral load reduction and viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs. Safety was assessed as the proportion of patients with adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to a lack of potential benefit in the target population in a planned interim analysis conducted in December 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04847141. Findings: 461 individuals (mean age 39.6 years [SD 12.8]) were randomized and received the intervention within a mean of 3.1 (SD 1.27) days from a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a subcutaneous infusion, the primary outcome occurred in 59.9% (91/152) of participants receiving 1 g C19-IG20%, 64.7% (99/153) receiving 2 g, and 63.5% (99/156) receiving placebo (difference in proportions 1 g C19-IG20% vs. placebo, −3.6%; 95% CI -14.6% to 7.3%, p = 0.53; 2 g C19-IG20% vs placebo, 1.1%; −9.6% to 11.9%, p = 0.85). None of the secondary clinical efficacy endpoints or virological endpoints were significantly different between study groups. Adverse event rate was similar between groups, and no severe or life-threatening adverse events related to investigational product infusion were reported. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that administration of subcutaneous human hyperimmune immunoglobulin C19-IG20% to asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection was safe but did not prevent development of symptomatic COVID-19. Funding: Grifols