Activation of Dendritic Cells through the Interleukin 1 Receptor 1 Is Critical for the Induction of Autoimmune Myocarditis

Dilated cardiomyopathy, resulting from myocarditis, is the most common cause of heart failure in young patients. We here show that interleukin (IL)-1 receptor type 1–deficient (IL-1R1−/−) mice are protected from development of autoimmune myocarditis after immunization with α-myosin-peptide(614–629). CD4+ T cells from immunized IL-1R1−/− mice proliferated poorly and failed to transfer disease after injection into naive severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mice. In vitro stimulation experiments suggested that the function of IL-1R1−/−CD4+ T cells was not intrinsically defect, but their activation by dendritic cells was impaired in IL-1R1−/− mice. Accordingly, production of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, IL-1, IL-6, and IL-12p70 was reduced in dendritic cells lacking the IL-1 receptor type 1. In fact, injection of immature, antigen-loaded IL-1R1+/+ but not IL-1R1−/− dendritic cells into IL-1R1−/− mice fully restored disease susceptibility by rendering IL-1R1−/− CD4+ T cells pathogenic. Thus, IL-1R1 triggering is required for efficient activation of dendritic cells, which is in turn a prerequisite for induction of autoreactive CD4+ T cells and autoimmunity

First-Response ABCDE Management of Status Epilepticus: A Prospective High-Fidelity Simulation Study

Respiratory infections following status epilepticus (SE) are frequent, and associated with higher mortality, prolonged ICU stay, and higher rates of refractory SE. Lack of airway protection may contribute to respiratory infectious complications. This study investigates the order and frequency of physicians treating a simulated SE following a systematic Airways-Breathing-Circulation-Disability-Exposure (ABCDE) approach, identifies risk factors for non-adherence, and analyzes the compliance of an ABCDE guided approach to SE with current guidelines. We conducted a prospective single-blinded high-fidelity trial at a Swiss academic simulator training center. Physicians of different affiliations were confronted with a simulated SE. Physicians (; n; = 74) recognized SE and performed a median of four of the five ABCDE checks (interquartile range 3-4). Thereof, 5% performed a complete assessment. Airways were checked within the recommended timeframe in 46%, breathing in 66%, circulation in 92%, and disability in 96%. Head-to-toe (exposure) examination was performed in 15%. Airways were protected in a timely manner in 14%, oxygen supplied in 69%, and antiseizure drugs (ASDs) administered in 99%. Participants' neurologic affiliation was associated with performance of fewer checks (regression coefficient -0.49;; p; = 0.015). We conclude that adherence to the ABCDE approach in a simulated SE was infrequent, but, if followed, resulted in adherence to treatment steps and more frequent protection of airways

Long-term course of ambulatory patients with COVID-19 initially treated with enoxaparin vs no anticoagulation: final analysis of the OVID (enoxaparin for outpatients with COVID-19) randomized trial

BACKGROUND Early thromboprophylaxis does not prevent hospital admissions and death among outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. Its impact on long-term outcomes, including long COVID symptoms and performance status, is unknown. OBJECTIVES To assess the long-term effects of thromboprophylaxis given at the time of acute COVID-19 in outpatients. METHODS The OVID (enoxaparin for outpatients with COVID-19) trial randomized outpatients older than 50 years with acute COVID-19 to receive either subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 14 days or standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). In this follow-up study, we assessed the 2-year outcomes, including all-cause hospitalization and death, cardiovascular events, long COVID symptoms, and functional limitations based on the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status (PCFS) scale and EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels scale. RESULTS Of 469 potentially eligible patients, 468 survived, of whom 439 (mean age 59 years; 54% men) participated in the Post-OVID study. There was no difference in terms of hospitalization and death (8.3% in the treatment group vs 10% in controls; relative risk, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.5-1.5) and of cardiovascular events between groups. The risk of presenting with long COVID symptoms was similar in the 2 groups (44% in the treatment group vs 47% in the standard of care group), with no difference between groups also concerning individual symptoms. A PCFS grade of 1 to 3, indicating light-to-moderate functional limitation, was recorded in 15% of patients in each group (odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.6-1.7). No patients reported severe limitations (PCFS grade 4). Median EuroQol visual analog scale score was 85 on 100 points (IQR, 80-90 for the standard of care group and 75-90 for the enoxaparin group). CONCLUSION Early thromboprophylaxis does not improve long-term, 2-year clinical and functional outcomes among symptomatic ambulatory patients with acute COVID-19

Comparing the utility of clinical risk scores and integrated clinical judgement in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome

Aims The utility of clinical risk scores regarding the prediction of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) is uncertain. We aimed to directly compare the prognostic performance of five established clinical risk scores as well as an unstructured integrated clinical judgement (ICJ) of the treating emergency department (ED) physician. Methods and results Thirty-day MACE including all-cause death, life-threatening arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction (including the index event), and unstable angina requiring urgent coronary revascularization were centrally adjudicated by two independent cardiologists in patients presenting to the ED with acute chest discomfort in an international multicentre study. We compared the prognostic performance of the HEART score, GRACE score, T-MACS, TIMI score, and EDACS, as well as the unstructured ICJ of the treating ED physician (visual analogue scale to estimate the probability of acute coronary syndrome, ranging from 0 to 100). Among 4551 eligible patients, 1110/4551 patients (24.4%) had at least one MACE within 30 days. Prognostic accuracy was high and comparable for the HEART score, GRACE score, T-MACS, and ICJ [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.85–0.87] but significantly lower and only moderate for the TIMI score (AUC 0.79, P < 0.001) and EDACS (AUC 0.74, P < 0.001), resulting in sensitivities for the rule-out of 30-day MACE of 93–96, 87 (P < 0.001), and 72% (P < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion The HEART score, GRACE score, T-MACS, and unstructured ICJ of the treating physician, not the TIMI score or EDACS, performed well for the prediction of 30-day MACE and may be considered for routine clinical use. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT0047058

Enoxaparin for outpatients with COVID-19: 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multinational, phase III OVID trial

INTRODUCTION The benefits of early thromboprophylaxis in symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients remain unclear. We present the 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, multinational OVID phase III trial. METHODS Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to receive enoxaparin 40 mg for 14 days once daily vs. standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was the composite of untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included arterial and venous major cardiovascular events, as well as the primary outcome within 90 days from randomisation. The study was prematurely terminated based on statistical criteria after the predefined interim analysis of 30-day data, which has been previously published. In the present analysis, we present the final, 90-day data from OVID and we additionally investigate the impact of thromboprophylaxis on the resolution of symptoms. RESULTS Of the 472 patients included in the intention-to-treat population, 234 were randomised to receive enoxaparin and 238 no thromboprophylaxis. The median age was 57 (Q1-Q3: 53-62) years and 217 (46 %) were women. The 90-day primary outcome occurred in 11 (4.7 %) patients of the enoxaparin arm and in 11 (4.6 %) controls (adjusted relative risk 1.00; 95 % CI: 0.44-2.25): 3 events per group occurred after day 30. The 90-day incidence of cardiovascular events was 0.9 % in the enoxaparin arm vs. 1.7 % in controls (relative risk 0.51; 95 % CI: 0.09-2.75). Individual symptoms improved progressively within 90 days with no difference between groups. At 90 days, 42 (17.9 %) patients in the enoxaparin arm and 40 (16.8 %) controls had persistent respiratory symptoms. CONCLUSIONS In adult community patients with COVID-19, early thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin did not improve the course of COVID-19 neither in terms of hospitalisation and death nor considering COVID-19-related symptoms

Enoxaparin for outpatients with COVID-19: 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multinational, phase III OVID trial.

INTRODUCTION The benefits of early thromboprophylaxis in symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients remain unclear. We present the 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, multinational OVID phase III trial. METHODS Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to receive enoxaparin 40 mg for 14 days once daily vs. standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was the composite of untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included arterial and venous major cardiovascular events, as well as the primary outcome within 90 days from randomisation. The study was prematurely terminated based on statistical criteria after the predefined interim analysis of 30-day data, which has been previously published. In the present analysis, we present the final, 90-day data from OVID and we additionally investigate the impact of thromboprophylaxis on the resolution of symptoms. RESULTS Of the 472 patients included in the intention-to-treat population, 234 were randomised to receive enoxaparin and 238 no thromboprophylaxis. The median age was 57 (Q1-Q3: 53-62) years and 217 (46 %) were women. The 90-day primary outcome occurred in 11 (4.7 %) patients of the enoxaparin arm and in 11 (4.6 %) controls (adjusted relative risk 1.00; 95 % CI: 0.44-2.25): 3 events per group occurred after day 30. The 90-day incidence of cardiovascular events was 0.9 % in the enoxaparin arm vs. 1.7 % in controls (relative risk 0.51; 95 % CI: 0.09-2.75). Individual symptoms improved progressively within 90 days with no difference between groups. At 90 days, 42 (17.9 %) patients in the enoxaparin arm and 40 (16.8 %) controls had persistent respiratory symptoms. CONCLUSIONS In adult community patients with COVID-19, early thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin did not improve the course of COVID-19 neither in terms of hospitalisation and death nor considering COVID-19-related symptoms

The role of copeptin as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for risk stratification in the emergency department

The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is activated in response to stress. One of the activated hypothalamic hormones is arginine vasopressin, a hormone involved in hemodynamics and osmoregulation. Copeptin, the C-terminal part of the arginine vasopressin precursor peptide, is a sensitive and stable surrogate marker for arginine vasopressin release. Measurement of copeptin levels has been shown to be useful in a variety of clinical scenarios, particularly as a prognostic marker in patients with acute diseases such as lower respiratory tract infection, heart disease and stroke. The measurement of copeptin levels may provide crucial information for risk stratification in a variety of clinical situations. As such, the emergency department appears to be the ideal setting for its potential use. This review summarizes the recent progress towards determining the prognostic and diagnostic value of copeptin in the emergency department

Empirical use of antibiotics and adjustment of empirical antibiotic therapies in a university hospital: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND: Several strategies to optimise the use of antibiotics have been developed. Most of these interventions can be classified as educational or restrictive. Restrictive measures are considered to be more effective, but the enforcement of these measures may be difficult and lead to conflicts with prescribers. Any intervention should be aimed at targets with the highest impact on antibiotic prescribing. The aim of the present study was to assess the adequacy of empirical and adjusted antibiotic therapies in a Swiss university hospital where no antibiotic use restrictions are enforced, and to identify risk factors for inadequate treatment and targets for intervention. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed during 9 months. All patients admitted through the emergency department who received an antibiotic therapy within 24 hours of admission were included. Data on demographic characteristics, diagnoses, comorbidities, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) parameters, microbiological tests, and administered antibiotics were collected prospectively. Antibiotic therapy was considered adequate if spectrum, dose, application modus, and duration of therapy were appropriate according to local recommendations or published guidelines. RESULTS: 2943 admitted patients were evaluated. Of these, 572 (19.4%) received antibiotics within 24 hours and 539 (94%) were analysed in detail. Empirical antibiotic therapy was inadequate in 121 patients (22%). Initial therapy was adjusted in 168 patients (31%). This adjusted antibiotic therapy was inadequate in 46 patients (27%). The main reason for inadequacy was the use of antibiotics with unnecessarily broad spectrum (24% of inadequate empirical, and 52% of inadequate adjusted therapies). In 26% of patients with inadequate adjusted therapy, antibiotics used were either ineffective against isolated pathogenic bacteria or antibiotic therapy was continued despite negative results of microbiological investigations. CONCLUSION: The rate of inadequate antibiotic therapies was similar to the rates reported from other institutions despite the absence of a restrictive antibiotic policy. Surprisingly, adjusted antibiotic therapies were more frequently inappropriate than empirical therapies. Interventions aiming at improving antibiotic prescribing should focus on both initial empirical therapy and streamlining and adjustment of therapy once microbiological results become available

Diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of clinical and laboratory parameters in community-acquired pneumonia

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the most frequent infection-related cause of death. The reference standard to diagnose CAP is a new infiltrate on chest radiograph in the presence of recently acquired respiratory signs and symptoms. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of clinical signs and symptoms and laboratory biomarkers for CAP. METHODS: 545 patients with suspected lower respiratory tract infection, admitted to the emergency department of a university hospital were included in a pre-planned post-hoc analysis of two controlled intervention trials. Baseline assessment included history, clinical examination, radiography and measurements of procalcitonin (PCT), highly sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP) and leukocyte count. RESULTS: Of the 545 patients, 373 had CAP, 132 other respiratory tract infections, and 40 other final diagnoses. The AUC of a clinical model including standard clinical signs and symptoms (i.e. fever, cough, sputum production, abnormal chest auscultation and dyspnea) to diagnose CAP was 0.79 [95% CI, 0.75–0.83]. This AUC was significantly improved by including PCT and hsCRP (0.92 [0.89–0.94]; p < 0.001). PCT had a higher diagnostic accuracy (AUC, 0.88 [0.84–0.93]) in differentiating CAP from other diagnoses, as compared to hsCRP (AUC, 0.76 [0.69–0.83]; p < 0.001) and total leukocyte count (AUC, 0.69 [0.62–0.77]; p < 0.001). To predict bacteremia, PCT had a higher AUC (0.85 [0.80–0.91]) as compared to hsCRP (p = 0.01), leukocyte count (p = 0.002) and elevated body temperature (p < 0.001). PCT, in contrast to hsCRP and leukocyte count, increased with increasing severity of CAP, as assessed by the pneumonia severity index (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PCT, and to a lesser degree hsCRP, improve the accuracy of currently recommended approaches for the diagnosis of CAP, thereby complementing clinical signs and symptoms. PCT is useful in the severity assessment of CAP