Peri-orbital foreign body: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Foreign bodies inside the orbital cavity are rare. They can cause more or less serious complications, depending on their nature and size.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We report a case of a work-related accident involving a peri-orbital foreign body. The patient was a 50-year-old Caucasian man whose face was injured on the right side while he was working with an agricultural machine. On admission, he was fully conscious and did not have any neurological deficits. He had no loss of vision or ocular motility, but had a laceration of the lateral side of his right upper eyelid. A computed tomographic scan revealed a 6-cm-long bended metal object lodged in the lateral bulbar space of the right orbit. The patient recovered well after surgery and a course of antibiotic therapy.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The original aspects of this case are the singularity of the foreign body and its relative harmlessness in spite of its large size.</p

Planning, Implementing, and Running a Multicentre Preterm Birth Study with Biobank Resources in Brazil: The Preterm SAMBA Study

Background. Our aim was to describe the steps in planning, implementing, and running a multicentre cohort study of maternal and perinatal health using a high-quality biobank comprised of maternal serum, plasma, and hair samples collected from five sites in Brazil. The Preterm SAMBA study, conducted by the Brazilian Network for Studies on Reproductive and Perinatal Health, was an innovative approach used to identify women at higher risk for preterm birth. It is also of great importance in the study of other maternal and perinatal complications in the context of Brazil, which is a middle-income country. Methods. We described phases of planning, implementing, and running the Preterm SAMBA study, a multicentre Brazilian cohort study of low-risk nulliparous pregnant women, to validate a set of metabolite biomarkers for preterm birth identified in an external cohort. Procedures and strategies used to plan, implement, and maintain this multicentre preterm birth study are described in detail. Barriers and experience cited in the current narrative are not usually discussed in the scientific literature or published study protocols. Results. Several barriers and strategies were identified in different phases of the Preterm SAMBA study at different levels of the study framework (steering committee; coordinating and local centres). Strategies implemented and resources used in the study are a legacy of the Brazilian Network, aimed at training collaborators in such complex settings. Conclusion. The Brazilian Network for Studies on Reproductive and Perinatal Health has gained some experience in conducting a multicentre cohort study using a resourceful biobank which may be helpful to other research groups and maternal/perinatal health networks that plan on employing a similar approach to a similar background.201

Contribution of Candida biomarkers and DNA detection for the diagnosis of invasive candidiasis in ICU patients with severe abdominal conditions

BACKGROUND: To assess the performance of Candida albicans germ tube antibody (CAGTA), (1 → 3)-ß-D-glucan (BDG), mannan antigen (mannan-Ag), anti-mannan antibodies (mannan-Ab), and Candida DNA for diagnosing invasive candidiasis (IC) in ICU patients with severe abdominal conditions (SAC). METHODS: A prospective study of 233 non-neutropenic patients with SAC on ICU admission and expected stay ≥ 7 days. CAGTA (cutoff positivity ≥ 1/160), BDG (≥80, 100 and 200 pg/mL), mannan-Ag (≥60 pg/mL), mannan-Ab (≥10 UA/mL) were measured twice a week, and Candida DNA only in patients treated with systemic antifungals. IC diagnosis required positivities of two biomarkers in a single sample or positivities of any biomarker in two consecutive samples. Patients were classified as neither colonized nor infected (n = 48), Candida spp. colonization (n = 154) (low-grade, n = 130; high-grade, n = 24), and IC (n = 31) (intra-abdominal candidiasis, n = 20; candidemia, n = 11). RESULTS: The combination of CAGTA and BDG positivities in a single sample or at least one of the two biomarkers positive in two consecutive samples showed 90.3 % (95 % CI 74.2–98.0) sensitivity, 42.1 % (95 % CI 35.2–98.8) specificity, and 96.6 % (95 % CI 90.5–98.8) negative predictive value. BDG positivities in two consecutive samples had 76.7 % (95 % CI 57.7–90.1) sensitivity and 57.2 % (95 % CI 49.9–64.3) specificity. Mannan-Ag, mannan-Ab, and Candida DNA individually or combined showed a low discriminating capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Positive Candida albicans germ tube antibody and (1 → 3)-ß-D-glucan in a single blood sample or (1 → 3)-ß-D-glucan positivity in two consecutive blood samples allowed discriminating invasive candidiasis from Candida spp. colonization in critically ill patients with severe abdominal conditions. These findings may be helpful to tailor empirical antifungal therapy in this patient population

A922 Sequential measurement of 1 hour creatinine clearance (1-CRCL) in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI)

Meeting abstrac

Multi-messenger observations of a binary neutron star merger

On 2017 August 17 a binary neutron star coalescence candidate (later designated GW170817) with merger time 12:41:04 UTC was observed through gravitational waves by the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo detectors. The Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor independently detected a gamma-ray burst (GRB 170817A) with a time delay of ~1.7 s with respect to the merger time. From the gravitational-wave signal, the source was initially localized to a sky region of 31 deg2 at a luminosity distance of 40+8-8 Mpc and with component masses consistent with neutron stars. The component masses were later measured to be in the range 0.86 to 2.26 Mo. An extensive observing campaign was launched across the electromagnetic spectrum leading to the discovery of a bright optical transient (SSS17a, now with the IAU identification of AT 2017gfo) in NGC 4993 (at ~40 Mpc) less than 11 hours after the merger by the One- Meter, Two Hemisphere (1M2H) team using the 1 m Swope Telescope. The optical transient was independently detected by multiple teams within an hour. Subsequent observations targeted the object and its environment. Early ultraviolet observations revealed a blue transient that faded within 48 hours. Optical and infrared observations showed a redward evolution over ~10 days. Following early non-detections, X-ray and radio emission were discovered at the transient’s position ~9 and ~16 days, respectively, after the merger. Both the X-ray and radio emission likely arise from a physical process that is distinct from the one that generates the UV/optical/near-infrared emission. No ultra-high-energy gamma-rays and no neutrino candidates consistent with the source were found in follow-up searches. These observations support the hypothesis that GW170817 was produced by the merger of two neutron stars in NGC4993 followed by a short gamma-ray burst (GRB 170817A) and a kilonova/macronova powered by the radioactive decay of r-process nuclei synthesized in the ejecta

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Temporal order of clinical and biomarker changes in familial frontotemporal dementia

Data availability: The datasets analyzed for the current study reflect collaborative efforts of two research consortia: ALLFTD and GENFI. Each consortium provides clinical data access based on established policies for data use: processes for request are available for review at allftd.org/data for ALLFTD data and by emailing [email protected]. Certain data elements from both consortia (for example raw MRI images) may be restricted due to the potential for identifiability in the context of the sensitive nature of the genetic data. The deidentified combined dataset will be available for request through the FTD Prevention Initiative in 2023 (https://www.thefpi.org/).Code availability: Custom R code is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6687486.Copyright © The Author(s). Unlike familial Alzheimer’s disease, we have been unable to accurately predict symptom onset in presymptomatic familial frontotemporal dementia (f-FTD) mutation carriers, which is a major hurdle to designing disease prevention trials. We developed multimodal models for f-FTD disease progression and estimated clinical trial sample sizes in C9orf72, GRN and MAPT mutation carriers. Models included longitudinal clinical and neuropsychological scores, regional brain volumes and plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) in 796 carriers and 412 noncarrier controls. We found that the temporal ordering of clinical and biomarker progression differed by genotype. In prevention-trial simulations using model-based patient selection, atrophy and NfL were the best endpoints, whereas clinical measures were potential endpoints in early symptomatic trials. f-FTD prevention trials are feasible but will likely require global recruitment efforts. These disease progression models will facilitate the planning of f-FTD clinical trials, including the selection of optimal endpoints and enrollment criteria to maximize power to detect treatment effects.Data collection and dissemination of the data presented in this paper were supported by the ALLFTD Consortium (U19: AG063911, funded by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke) and the former ARTFL and LEFFTDS Consortia (ARTFL: U54 NS092089, funded by the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; LEFFTDS: U01 AG045390, funded by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke). The manuscript was reviewed by the ALLFTD Executive Committee for scientific content. The authors acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the study participants and families as well as the assistance of the support staffs at each of the participating sites. This work is also supported by the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration (including the FTD Biomarkers Initiative), the Bluefield Project to Cure FTD, Larry L. Hillblom Foundation (2018-A-025-FEL (A.M.S.)), the National Institutes of Health (AG038791 (A.L.B.), AG032306 (H.J.R.), AG016976 (W.K.), AG062677 (Ron C. Peterson), AG019724 (B.L.M.), AG058233 (Suzee E. Lee), AG072122 (Walter Kukull), P30 AG062422 (B.L.M.), K12 HD001459 (N.G.), K23AG061253 (A.M.S.), AG062422 (RCP), K24AG045333 (H.J.R.)) and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation. Samples from the National Centralized Repository for Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias (NCRAD), which receives government support under a cooperative agreement grant (U24 AG021886 (T.F.)) awarded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), were used in this study. This work was also supported by Medical Research Council UK GENFI grant MR/M023664/1 (J.D.R.), the Bluefield Project, the National Institute for Health Research including awards to Cambridge and UCL Biomedical Research Centres and a JPND GENFI-PROX grant (2019–02248). Several authors of this publication are members of the European Reference Network for Rare Neurologic Diseases, project 739510. J.D.R. and L.L.R. are also supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) UCL/H Biomedical Research Centre, the Leonard Wolfson Experimental Neurology Centre Clinical Research Facility and the UK Dementia Research Institute, which receives its funding from UK DRI Ltd, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK. J.D.R. is also supported by the Miriam Marks Brain Research UK Senior Fellowship and has received funding from an MRC Clinician Scientist Fellowship (MR/M008525/1) and the NIHR Rare Disease Translational Research Collaboration (BRC149/NS/MH). M.B. is supported by a Fellowship award from the Alzheimer’s Society, UK (AS-JF-19a-004-517). RC and C.G. are supported by a Frontotemporal Dementia Research Studentships in Memory of David Blechner funded through The National Brain Appeal (RCN 290173). J.B.R. is supported by NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014; the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care), the Wellcome Trust (220258), the Cambridge Centre for Parkinson-plus and the Medical Research Council (SUAG/092 G116768); I.L.B. is supported by ANR-PRTS PREV-DemAls, PHRC PREDICT-PGRN, and several authors of this publication are members of the European Reference Network for Rare Neurological Diseases (project 739510). J.L. is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy within the framework of the Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (EXC 2145 SyNergy – ID 390857198). R.S.-V. was funded at the Hospital Clinic de Barcelona by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain (grant code PI20/00448 to RSV) and Fundació Marató TV3, Spain (grant code 20143810 to R.S.-V.). M.M. was, in part, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, the Italian Ministry of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research as part of a Centres of Excellence in Neurodegeneration grant, by Canadian Institutes of Health Research operating grants (MOP- 371851 and PJT-175242) and by funding from the Weston Brain Institute. R.L. is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Chaire de Recherche sur les Aphasies Primaires Progressives Fondation Famille Lemaire. C.G. is supported by the Swedish Frontotemporal Dementia Initiative Schörling Foundation, Swedish Research Council, JPND Prefrontals, 2015–02926,2018–02754, Swedish Alzheimer Foundation, Swedish Brain Foundation, Karolinska Institutet Doctoral Funding, KI Strat-Neuro, Swedish Dementia Foundation, and Stockholm County Council ALF/Region Stockholm. J.L. is supported by Germany’s Excellence Strategy within the framework of the Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (German Research Foundation, EXC 2145 Synergy 390857198). The Dementia Research Centre is supported by Alzheimer’s Research UK, Alzheimer’s Society, Brain Research UK, and The Wolfson Foundation. This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research UCL/H Biomedical Research Centre, the Leonard Wolfson Experimental Neurology Centre Clinical Research Facility and the UK Dementia Research Institute, which receives its funding from UK DRI Ltd, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer’s Society, and Alzheimer’s Research UK