Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

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

31st Annual Meeting and Associated Programs of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC 2016) : part two

Background The immunological escape of tumors represents one of the main ob- stacles to the treatment of malignancies. The blockade of PD-1 or CTLA-4 receptors represented a milestone in the history of immunotherapy. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be effective in specific cohorts of patients. It has been proposed that their efficacy relies on the presence of an immunological response. Thus, we hypothesized that disruption of the PD-L1/PD-1 axis would synergize with our oncolytic vaccine platform PeptiCRAd. Methods We used murine B16OVA in vivo tumor models and flow cytometry analysis to investigate the immunological background. Results First, we found that high-burden B16OVA tumors were refractory to combination immunotherapy. However, with a more aggressive schedule, tumors with a lower burden were more susceptible to the combination of PeptiCRAd and PD-L1 blockade. The therapy signifi- cantly increased the median survival of mice (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the reduced growth of contralaterally injected B16F10 cells sug- gested the presence of a long lasting immunological memory also against non-targeted antigens. Concerning the functional state of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), we found that all the immune therapies would enhance the percentage of activated (PD-1pos TIM- 3neg) T lymphocytes and reduce the amount of exhausted (PD-1pos TIM-3pos) cells compared to placebo. As expected, we found that PeptiCRAd monotherapy could increase the number of antigen spe- cific CD8+ T cells compared to other treatments. However, only the combination with PD-L1 blockade could significantly increase the ra- tio between activated and exhausted pentamer positive cells (p= 0.0058), suggesting that by disrupting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis we could decrease the amount of dysfunctional antigen specific T cells. We ob- served that the anatomical location deeply influenced the state of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. In fact, TIM-3 expression was in- creased by 2 fold on TILs compared to splenic and lymphoid T cells. In the CD8+ compartment, the expression of PD-1 on the surface seemed to be restricted to the tumor micro-environment, while CD4 + T cells had a high expression of PD-1 also in lymphoid organs. Interestingly, we found that the levels of PD-1 were significantly higher on CD8+ T cells than on CD4+ T cells into the tumor micro- environment (p < 0.0001). Conclusions In conclusion, we demonstrated that the efficacy of immune check- point inhibitors might be strongly enhanced by their combination with cancer vaccines. PeptiCRAd was able to increase the number of antigen-specific T cells and PD-L1 blockade prevented their exhaus- tion, resulting in long-lasting immunological memory and increased median survival

Facteurs influençant le délai avant la prise en charge médicale dans les syndromes coronariens aigus ST+ (étude descriptive en Sarthe)

Le temps d'ischémie myocardique dans les syndromes coronariens aigus ST+ est directement corrélée à la mortalité de cette pathologie. L'objectif de cette étude était d'étudier les délais précédant la prise en charge médicale et d'identifier les facteurs influençant ces délais. Il s'agissait d'une étude descriptive, menée dans l'USIC du CH du Mans. 52 patients admis pour syndrome coronarien aigu ST+ ou infarctus du myocarde semi-récent (entre 12 et 72 heures) avec sus-décalage du segment ST ont été inclus. Le délai étudié était celui entre le début de la douleur et l'ECG qualifiant. La filière de prise en charge, ainsi que des données démographiques et médicales étaient enregistrées. Une analyse univariée à été réalisée pour déterminer les facteurs prédictifs de prise en charge tardive et d'appel au 15. Ont été recueillies, par questions ouvertes, les raisons données pour expliquer un délai supérieur à une heure avant un premier contact médical et une absence d'appel au 15.Le délai douleur-ECG qualifiant était significativement plus court chez les patients non retraités (p=0.01), les patients ne vivant pas seuls à domicile (p=0.02), les patients présentant une douleur thoracique révélatrice (p=0.02), les patients ayant appelé le 15 en premier lieu (58%, p=0.0002) et les patients dont le premier intervenant médical était le SMUR (p<0.0001). L existence d antécédents cardio-vasculaires et l utilisation de trinitrine à visée antalgique étaient associés significativement avec l appel au 15 (p=0.03 pour les deux variables).Une éducation des patients à risque est la clef pour réduire le délai précédant la prise en charge dans le SCA ST+.ANGERS-BU Médecine-Pharmacie (490072105) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSudocFranceF

Prise en charge diagnostique des céphalées aiguës aux urgences

Les céphalées aiguës aux urgences posent le problème des investigations à mettre en œuvre d'autant qu'il n'existe pas de règle décisionnelle claire et validée permettant de stratifier les patients suivants leur risque d'hémorragie méningée. Nous avons réalisé une étude prospective dont l'objectif principal était dévaluer l adéquation aux recommandations d experts actuelles pour les patients présentant une céphalée à risque et également d'évaluer les facteurs cliniques liés à la réalisation d'examens complémentaires et l'apport des différentes stratégies diagnostiques rencontrées dans l'évaluation des céphalées aiguës. 49.5% des patients ont eu un examen complémentaire dont 39.8% un scanner cérébral (rentabilité 28.9%) et 20% une ponction lombaire (rentabilité 34.8%). Dans notre étude, nous avons noté que les recommandations d experts, préconisant un scanner cérébral sans injection, plus ou moins une ponction lombaire devant toute céphalée inhabituelle, ne sont pas appliquées pour tous les patients avec une céphalée à risque d hémorragie méningée: 22% des céphalées à risque n'ont eu aucun examen et 57.1% des céphalées à risque ont eu une ponction lombaire après un scanner cérébral normal. Dans notre population, le facteur le plus lié à la réalisation d examens complémentaires était la probabilité clinique subjective d hémorragie méningée, mesure dont la reproductibilité n a jamais été évaluée pour cette pathologie. Les résultats de notre étude soulignent l'actuel manque de score de probabilité clinique. Ces derniers permettraient de stratifier les patients à risque d'hemorragie méningée et d'orienter les cliniciens sur les investigations complémentaires à engager.ANGERS-BU Médecine-Pharmacie (490072105) / SudocSudocFranceF

Particularités des intoxications médicamenteuses volontaires en fonction de l'âge: Etude épidémiologique.

ANGERS-BU Médecine-Pharmacie (490072105) / SudocSudocFranceF

Hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone for community acquired pneumonia-related septic shock: a subgroup analysis of the APROCCHSS phase 3 randomised trial

International audienceBackground: Glucocorticoids probably improve outcomes in patients hospitalised for community acquired pneumonia (CAP). In this a priori planned exploratory subgroup analysis of the phase 3 randomised controlled Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock (APROCCHSS) trial, we aimed to investigate responses to hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone between CAP and non-CAP related septic shock.Methods: APROCCHSS was a randomised controlled trial that investigated the effects of hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone, drotrecogin-alfa (activated), or both on mortality in septic shock in a two-by-two factorial design; after drotrecogin-alfa was withdrawn on October 2011, from the market, the trial continued on two parallel groups. It was conducted in 34 centres in France. In this subgroup study, patients with CAP were a preselected subgroup for an exploratory secondary analysis of the APROCCHSS trial of hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone in septic shock. Adults with septic shock were randomised 1:1 to receive, in a double-blind manner, a 7-day treatment with daily administration of intravenous hydrocortisone 50 mg bolus every 6h and a tablet of 50 μg of fludrocortisone via the nasogastric tube, or their placebos. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital discharge, 28-day and 180-day mortality, the number of days alive and free of vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, or organ failure, and ICU and hospital free-days to 90-days. Analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00625209).Findings: Of 1241 patients included in the APROCCHSS trial, CAP could not be ruled in or out in 31 patients, 562 had a diagnosis of CAP (279 in the placebo group and 283 in the corticosteroid group), and 648 patients did not have CAP (329 in the placebo group and 319 in the corticosteroid group). In patients with CAP, there were 109 (39%) deaths of 283 patients at day 90 with hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone and 143 (51%) of 279 patients receiving placebo (odds ratio [OR] 0·60, 95% CI 0·43-0·83). In patients without CAP, there were 148 (46%) deaths of 319 patients at day 90 in the hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone group and 157 (48%) of 329 patients in the placebo group (OR 0·95, 95% CI 0·70-1·29). There was significant heterogeneity in corticosteroid effects on 90-day mortality across subgroups with CAP and without CAP (p=0·046 for both multiplicative and additive interaction tests; moderate credibility). Of 1241 patients included in the APROCCHSS trial, 648 (52%) had ARDS (328 in the placebo group and 320 in the corticosteroid group). There were 155 (48%) deaths of 320 patients at day 90 in the corticosteroid group and 186 (57%) of 328 patients in the placebo group. The OR for death at day 90 was 0·72 (95% CI 0·53-0·98) in patients with ARDS and 0·85 (0·61-1·20) in patients without ARDS (p=0·45 for multiplicative interaction and p=0·42 for additive interaction). The OR for observing at least one serious adverse event (corticosteroid group vs placebo) within 180 days post randomisation was 0·64 (95% CI 0·46-0·89) in the CAP subgroup and 1·02 (0·75-1·39) in the non-CAP subgroup (p=0·044 for multiplicative interaction and p=0·042 for additive interaction).Interpretation: In a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the APROCCHSS trial of patients with CAP and septic shock, hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone reduced mortality as compared with placebo. Although a large proportion of patients with CAP also met criteria for ARDS, the subgroup analysis was underpowered to fully discriminate between ARDS and CAP modifying effects on mortality reduction with corticosteroids. There was no evidence of a significant treatment effect of corticosteroids in the non-CAP subgroup.Funding: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique of the French Ministry of Health, by Programme d'Investissements d'Avenir, France 2030, and IAHU-ANR-0004