Torque teno virus (TTV): A gentle spy virus of immune status, predictive marker of seroconversion to COVID-19 vaccine in kidney and lung transplant recipients

To date, no comprehensive marker to monitor the immune status of patients is available. Given that Torque teno virus (TTV), a known human virome component, has previously been identified as a marker of immunocompetence, it was retrospectively investigated whether TTV viral load may also represent a marker of ability to develop antibody in response to COVID-19-BNT162B2 vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients (SOT). Specifically, 273 samples from 146 kidney and 26 lung transplant recipients after successive doses of vaccine were analyzed. An inverse correlation was observed within the TTV copy number and anti-Spike IgG antibody titer with a progressive decrease in viremia the further away from the transplant date. Analyzing the data obtained after the second dose, a significant difference in TTV copy number between responsive and nonresponsive patients was observed, considering a 5 log10 TTV copies/mL threshold to discriminate between the two groups. Moreover, for 86 patients followed in their response to the second and third vaccination doses a 6 log10 TTV copies/mL threshold was used to predict responsivity to the booster dose. Although further investigation is necessary, possibly extending the analysis to other patient categories, this study suggests that TTV can be used as a good marker of vaccine response in transplant patients

Carney-Complex: Multiple resections of recurrent cardiac myxoma

We report a case of a female patient who was operated at the third relapse of an atrial myxoma caused by Carney complex. The difficult operation was performed without any complications despite extensive adhesions caused by the previous operations. The further inpatient course went without complications and the patient was discharged to the consecutive treatment on the 9th postoperative day. The echocardiographic finding postoperative showed no abnormalities

Subjective hunger, gastric upset, and sleepiness in response to altered meal timing during simulated shiftwork

Shiftworkers report eating during the night when the body is primed to sleep. This study investigated the impact of altering food timing on subjective responses. Healthy participants (n = 44, 26 male, age Mean ± SD = 25.0 ± 2.9 years, BMI = 23.82 ± 2.59kg/m2) participated in a 7-day simulated shiftwork protocol. Participants were randomly allocated to one of three eating conditions. At 00:30, participants consumed a meal comprising 30% of 24 h energy intake (Meal condition; n = 14, 8 males), a snack comprising 10% of 24 h energy intake (Snack condition; n = 14; 8 males) or did not eat during the night (No Eating condition; n = 16, 10 males). Total 24 h individual energy intake and macronutrient content was constant across conditions. During the night, participants reported hunger, gut reaction, and sleepiness levels at 21:00, 23:30, 2:30, and 5:00. Mixed model analyses revealed that the snack condition reported significantly more hunger than the meal group (p < 0.001) with the no eating at night group reporting the greatest hunger (p < 0.001). There was no difference in desire to eat between meal and snack groups. Participants reported less sleepiness after the snack compared to after the meal (p < 0.001) or when not eating during the night (p < 0.001). Gastric upset did not differ between conditions. A snack during the nightshift could alleviate hunger during the nightshift without causing fullness or increased sleepiness.Charlotte C Gupta, Stephanie Centofanti, Jillian Dorrian , Alison M Coates, Jacqueline M Stepien, David Kennaway, Gary Wittert, Leonie Heilbronn, Peter Catcheside, Manny Noakes, Daniel Coro, Dilushi Chandrakumar and Siobhan Bank

Patient- and family-centered performance measures focused on actionable processes of care for persistent and chronic critical illness: protocol for a systematic review

Background: Approximately 5 to 10% of critically ill patients transition from acute critical illness to a state of persistent and in some cases chronic critical illness. These patients have unique and complex needs that require a change in the clinical management plan and overall goals of care to a focus on rehabilitation, symptom relief,discharge planning, and in some cases, end-of-life care. However, existing indicators and measures of care quality,and tools such as checklists, that foster implementation of best practices, may not be sufficiently inclusive in terms of actionable processes of care relevant to these patients. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to identify the processes of care, performance measures, quality indicators, and outcomes including reports of patient/family experience described in the current evidence base relevant to patients with persistent or chronic critical illness and their family members.Methods: Two authors will independently search from inception to November 2016: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL,Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, the Joanna Briggs Institute and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We will include all study designs except case series/reports o

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707