The association between iron deficiency and outcomes: a secondary analysis of the intravenous iron therapy to treat iron deficiency anaemia in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery (PREVENTT) trial.

In the intravenous iron therapy to treat iron deficiency anaemia in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery (PREVENTT) trial, the use of intravenous iron did not reduce the need for blood transfusion or reduce patient complications or length of hospital stay. As part of the trial protocol, serum was collected at randomisation and on the day of surgery. These samples were analysed in a central laboratory for markers of iron deficiency. We performed a secondary analysis to explore the potential interactions between pre-operative markers of iron deficiency and intervention status on the trial outcome measures. Absolute iron deficiency was defined as ferritin <30 μg.l-1 ; functional iron deficiency as ferritin 30-100 μg.l-1 or transferrin saturation < 20%; and the remainder as non-iron deficient. Interactions were estimated using generalised linear models that included different subgroup indicators of baseline iron status. Co-primary endpoints were blood transfusion or death and number of blood transfusions, from randomisation to 30 days postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included peri-operative change in haemoglobin, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. Most patients had iron deficiency (369/452 [82%]) at randomisation; one-third had absolute iron deficiency (144/452 [32%]) and half had functional iron deficiency (225/452 [50%]). The change in pre-operative haemoglobin with intravenous iron compared with placebo was greatest in patients with absolute iron deficiency, mean difference 8.9 g.l-1 , 95%CI 5.3-12.5; moderate in functional iron deficiency, mean difference 2.8 g.l-1 , 95%CI -0.1 to 5.7; and with little change seen in those patients who were non-iron deficient. Subgroup analyses did not suggest that intravenous iron compared with placebo reduced the likelihood of death or blood transfusion at 30 days differentially across subgroups according to baseline ferritin (p = 0.33 for interaction), transferrin saturation (p = 0.13) or in combination (p = 0.45), or for the number of blood transfusions (p = 0.06, 0.29, and 0.39, respectively). There was no beneficial effect of the use of intravenous iron compared with placebo, regardless of the metrics to diagnose iron deficiency, on postoperative complications or length of hospital stay

Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care1 or hospitalization2–4 after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes—including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)—in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease

Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care1 or hospitalization2,3,4 after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes—including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)—in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease

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

Social work education, research and practice in India and Australia: an introduction

The increased interest among social work educators and practitioners from India and Australia has created many pathways for innovative and creative learning opportunities through exchange programs. Social work educators and practitioners in both the countries have proactively engaged in international short-term faculty and student exchanges and field placements, research activities and collaborative initiatives such as workshops, international conferences and joint publishing of social work texts. The authors, from Bharathidasan University (BDU) and James Cook University (JCU), noted the success of these original endeavors and particularly their potential to create momentum beyond the initial activity. They saw that focusing on collaborative social work learning in their own smaller contexts could create positive change and impact in ways they did not anticipate. This experience, replicated in other collaborative activities, provided enormous insights and learning on both sides, leading finally to the idea of documenting cross-cultural perspectives from India and Australia. In this chapter the authors present their perspective on the scenario of social work education, research and practice in India and Australia. Besides, brief summaries of all the chapters of the book are also presented

International consensus statement on the peri-operative management of anaemia and iron deficiency

Despite current recommendations on the management of pre-operative anaemia, there is no pragmatic guidance for the diagnosis and management of anaemia and iron deficiency in surgical patients. A number of experienced researchers and clinicians took part in an expert workshop and developed the following consensus statement. After presentation of our own research data and local policies and procedures, appropriate relevant literature was reviewed and discussed. We developed a series of best-practice and evidence-based statements to advise on patient care with respect to anaemia and iron deficiency in the peri-operative period. These statements include: a diagnostic approach for anaemia and iron deficiency in surgical patients; identification of patients appropriate for treatment; and advice on practical management and follow-up. We urge anaesthetists and peri-operative physicians to embrace these recommendations, and hospital administrators to enable implementation of these concepts by allocating adequate resources

Social work education, research and practice: challenges and looking forward

In this chapter, we present a summary of key ideas expressed in this book and invite readers, social work educators, researchers, scholars, practitioners and students to deeply ponder on some of the challenges and opportunities for social work in post-COVID-19 world. By describing these challenges the social work profession faces, we provide a bird’s eye view of the possibilities and opportunities for practice in the future based on our collaborative discussions, reflections and experiences. Many factors have influenced the outcome of this book. The various kinds of social work initiatives undertaken, both, in India and Australia, especially in social work education, indicate the importance of cross-cultural learning, decoloniality and discussing the impact international collaboration can have in promoting social justice and human rights. In the context of the global challenges and disruptions presented by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we place a special emphasis on post-pandemic response, directing readers to contemplate on the kind of work that can be done in social work education, research and practice

Decolonizing social work research education: reflections from India and Australia

As Indian and Australian academics, the authors have worked together to critically examine our social work research teaching and suggest scholarly responses to social work students' 'research reluctance'. Our reflections led us to support the calls of authors such as Baikady, and others, that social work research education should be 'rooted in the needs and culture of its own society' (Baikady et al., International Journal of Social Work and Human Services Practice 2:311–318, 2014, p. 317), and that 'the incorporation of Indigenous must not be token and piecemeal, it should be primary…' (Singh, S., Gumz, E., & Crawley, C., SocialWork Education 30(7):861–873, 2011, p. 872). Our chapter addresses the complexity of honouring Indigenous knowledge, decolonizing our research teaching while considering the place and value of Western research knowledge and theory. We argue there are no simple responses to these complex considerations and, further, that research educators need to adopt a sophisticated and nuanced approach, focusing on collaboration and critical reflection. In this context, the task of the social work research teacher is to create a learning environment where it is possible to hear diverse voices, and to also challenge and deconstruct, with students, the taken for granted assumptions about the 'truth' of 'Western' knowledge, without entire rejection — moving from instructing and telling to walking alongside and working with our students and their communities