グアー起泡性アルブミンの起泡特性

From guar meal we recently isolated an albumin fraction with a high foaming ability, named guar foaming albumin (GFA) . Here, we further characterized the foaming activity, foam stability and surface tension of GFA solutions. Foaming activity and foam stability were estimated by measuring the conductivity of foam using a glass column with a conductivity cell. Surface tension was measured by the drop weight method using a stalagmometer. GFA showed higher foaming activity than casein at any protein concentrations compared. Foam stability of GFA was comparable to that of casein. The reduction of disulfide bonds of GFA did not significantly affect its foaming properties at higher concentrations ( ＞ 3 mg/ml) of GFA. The ability of GFA to reduce surface tension was substantially affected by the ionic strength of solutions, suggesting the importance of the electrostatic interaction of GFA in its foaming activity. These results indicated a potential usefulness of GFA as a foaming agent in food processing【目的】我々はグアー豆からグアーガムを精製する際に廃棄されるグアーミールから,起泡性の高いタンパク質画分を単離し,グアー起泡性アルブミンGFA(Guar　Foaming　Albumin)と命名した。本研究ではGFAの起泡性及び泡沫安定性を導電率によって定量的に測定し,さらに,起泡性の第一要件である表面張力の低下減少能を滴重法により測定することで,GFAの起泡特性を詳細に調べることとした。　【方法】タンパク質試料溶液に窒素ガスを通し,発生した泡の導電率を測定した。発生した泡がガラス管の上端に達するまでの時間を起泡時間とし,起泡性の評価として用いた。また,導電率の値の低下から,泡沫安定性を評価した。表面張力の測定には滴重法を用いた。　【結果・考察】GFAは,オボアルブミンやβ-カゼインと比べて,起泡性,泡沫安定性ともに優れていることがわかった。またGFAは,ジスルフィド結合を切断するメルカプトエタノールを加えても,影響を受けにくいことが示された。GFA溶液の表面張力は低タンパク質濃度で急激な減少を示したが,β-カゼインよりも低下可能は低かった。また塩の添加により表面張力低下能は促進された。pHによる影響を調べたところpH　7.0で表面張力は最低の値を示した。これらの結果,起泡性を利用する食品で,GFAは卵白などの代替タンパク質として使用できることが示唆された

Effect of SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine on thyroid autoimmunity: A twelve-month follow-up study

ObjectivesGraves’ disease (GD) has been highlighted as a possible adverse effect of the respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine. However, it is unknown if the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine disrupts thyroid autoimmunity. We aimed to present long-term follow-up of thyroid autoimmunity after the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.MethodsSerum samples collected from seventy Japanese healthcare workers at baseline, 32 weeks after the second dose (pre-third dose), and 4 weeks after the third dose of the vaccine were analyzed. The time courses of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody, thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor antibody (TRAb), and thyroid function were evaluated. Anti-thyroglobulin antibodies (TgAb) and anti-thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAb) were additionally evaluated in thirty-three participants.ResultsThe median age was 50 (IQR, 38-54) years and 69% were female. The median anti-spike IgG antibody titer was 17627 (IQR, 10898-24175) U/mL 4 weeks after the third dose. The mean TRAb was significantly increased from 0.81 (SD, 0.05) IU/L at baseline to 0.97 (SD, 0.30) IU/L 4 weeks after the third dose without functional changes. An increase in TRAb was positively associated with female sex (β = 0.32, P = 0.008) and low basal FT4 (β = -0.29, P = 0.02) and FT3 (β = -0.33, P = 0.004). TgAb was increased by the third dose. Increase in TgAb was associated with history of the thyroid diseases (β = 0.55, P <0.001).ConclusionsSARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine can disrupt thyroid autoimmunity. Clinicians should consider the possibility that the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine may disrupt thyroid autoimmunity

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

Background and purposeThe Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 and published in the Journal of JSICM, [2017; Volume 24 (supplement 2)] https://doi.org/10.3918/jsicm.24S0001 and Journal of Japanese Association for Acute Medicine [2017; Volume 28, (supplement 1)] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jja2.2017.28.issue-S1/issuetoc.This abridged English edition of the J-SSCG 2016 was produced with permission from the Japanese Association of Acute Medicine and the Japanese Society for Intensive Care Medicine.MethodsMembers of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ) and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (> 66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.ResultsA total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation, and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty-seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for five CQs.ConclusionsBased on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.other authors: Yasuhiro Norisue, Satoru Hashimoto, Daisuke Hasegawa, Junji Hatakeyama, Naoki Hara, Naoki Higashibeppu, Nana Furushima, Hirotaka Furusono, Yujiro Matsuishi, Tasuku Matsuyama, Yusuke Minematsu, Ryoichi Miyashita, Yuji Miyatake, Megumi Moriyasu, Toru Yamada, Hiroyuki Yamada, Ryo Yamamoto, Takeshi Yoshida, Yuhei Yoshida, Jumpei Yoshimura, Ryuichi Yotsumoto, Hiroshi Yonekura, Takeshi Wada, Eizo Watanabe, Makoto Aoki, Hideki Asai, Takakuni Abe, Yutaka Igarashi, Naoya Iguchi, Masami Ishikawa, Go Ishimaru, Shutaro Isokawa, Ryuta Itakura, Hisashi Imahase, Haruki Imura, Takashi Irinoda, Kenji Uehara, Noritaka Ushio, Takeshi Umegaki, Yuko Egawa, Yuki Enomoto, Kohei Ota, Yoshifumi Ohchi, Takanori Ohno, Hiroyuki Ohbe, Kazuyuki Oka, Nobunaga Okada, Yohei Okada, Hiromu Okano, Jun Okamoto, Hiroshi Okuda, Takayuki Ogura, Yu Onodera, Yuhta Oyama, Motoshi Kainuma, Eisuke Kako, Masahiro Kashiura, Hiromi Kato, Akihiro Kanaya, Tadashi Kaneko, Keita Kanehata, Ken-ichi Kano, Hiroyuki Kawano, Kazuya Kikutani, Hitoshi Kikuchi, Takahiro Kido, Sho Kimura, Hiroyuki Koami, Daisuke Kobashi, Iwao Saiki, Masahito Sakai, Ayaka Sakamoto, Tetsuya Sato, Yasuhiro Shiga, Manabu Shimoto, Shinya Shimoyama, Tomohisa Shoko, Yoh Sugawara, Atsunori Sugita, Satoshi Suzuki, Yuji Suzuki, Tomohiro Suhara, Kenji Sonota, Shuhei Takauji, Kohei Takashima, Sho Takahashi, Yoko Takahashi, Jun Takeshita, Yuuki Tanaka, Akihito Tampo, Taichiro Tsunoyama, Kenichi Tetsuhara, Kentaro Tokunaga, Yoshihiro Tomioka, Kentaro Tomita, Naoki Tominaga, Mitsunobu Toyosaki, Yukitoshi Toyoda, Hiromichi Naito, Isao Nagata, Tadashi Nagato, Yoshimi Nakamura, Yuki Nakamori, Isao Nahara, Hiromu Naraba, Chihiro Narita, Norihiro Nishioka, Tomoya Nishimura, Kei Nishiyama, Tomohisa Nomura, Taiki Haga, Yoshihiro Hagiwara, Katsuhiko Hashimoto, Takeshi Hatachi, Toshiaki Hamasaki, Takuya Hayashi, Minoru Hayashi, Atsuki Hayamizu, Go Haraguchi, Yohei Hirano, Ryo Fujii, Motoki Fujita, Naoyuki Fujimura, Hiraku Funakoshi, Masahito Horiguchi, Jun Maki, Naohisa Masunaga, Yosuke Matsumura, Takuya Mayumi, Keisuke Minami, Yuya Miyazaki, Kazuyuki Miyamoto, Teppei Murata, Machi Yanai, Takao Yano, Kohei Yamada, Naoki Yamada, Tomonori Yamamoto, Shodai Yoshihiro, Hiroshi Tanaka & Osamu Nishid

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Is de-escalation of antimicrobials effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: De-escalation therapy is a strategy used widely to treat infections while avoiding the use of broad-spectrum antimicrobials. However, there is a paucity of clinical evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of de-escalation therapy compared to conventional therapy. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on de-escalation therapy for a variety of infections. A search of the MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases up to July 2015 for relevant studies was performed. The primary outcome was relevant mortality, such as 30-day mortality and in-hospital mortality. A meta-analysis was to be conducted for the pooled odds ratio using the random-effects model when possible. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included in the analysis. Results: A total of 23 studies were included in the analysis. There was no difference in mortality for most infections, and some studies favored de-escalation over non-de-escalation for better survival. The quality of most studies included was not high. Conclusions: This review and analysis suggests that de-escalation therapy is safe and effective for most infections, although higher quality studies are needed in the future