L'archéologie française à l'étranger: Nouveaux enjeux de politique scientifique et de coopération internationale pour le Ministère des affaires étrangères et européennes

L'organisation et le financement de la recherche archéologique française hors du territoire national reposent pour une très large part sur le dispositif géré depuis plus d'un demi-siècle par le Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes : la Commission consultative de la recherche archéologique à l'étranger évalue et propose le financement des projets de recherche grâce à un appel d'offre annuel, les Instituts français de recherche à l'étranger, codirigés avec le CNRS, organisent dans bon nombre de pays hôtes la coordination des actions de recherche et l'accueil de chercheurs grâce à des structures pérennes. Cette double organisation, seule en France à être explicitement et uniquement dévolue à l'archéologie, prend en charge chaque année de 150 à 200 projets dans une organisation fortement internationalisée puisqu'elle permet à près de 1800 personnes, dont près de 800 non français, de travailler à l'étranger (chiffres année 2010). Elle répond avec une grande efficacité aux besoins des projets et des équipes qui s'en félicitent : une organisation administrative et gestionnaire légère permet une adaptation très rapide et souple aux conditions de travail à l'étranger ; un appel d'offre annuel totalement ouvert géographiquement et thématiquement laisse la capacité d'initiative aux acteurs de la discipline ; le soutien sur place des instituts et des services diplomatiques est un outil précieux pour la réalisation des projets en concertation avec les institutions et les collègues des pays hôtes. après avoir décrit le dispositif, le rapport traite quatre aspects : les relations entre les institutions françaises et étrangères intervenant dans la recherche archéologique à l'étranger les thématiques de recherche et l'évaluation des projets l'organisation et la réalisation des projets l'exploitation des projets à travers la production scientifique, la diffusion et la valorisation des résultats. Ces aspects nous permettent de concentrer l'attention sur les enjeux déterminants et les évolutions souhaitables du dispositif général

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy alone or with non-invasive ventilation during the weaning period after extubation in ICU: the prospective randomised controlled HIGH-WEAN protocol

INTRODUCTION: Recent practice guidelines suggest applying non-invasive ventilation (NIV) to prevent postextubation respiratory failure in patients at high risk of extubation failure in intensive care unit (ICU). However, such prophylactic NIV has been only a conditional recommendation given the low certainty of evidence. Likewise, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has been shown to reduce reintubation rates as compared with standard oxygen and to be as efficient as NIV in patients at high risk. Whereas HFNC may be considered as an optimal therapy during the postextubation period, HFNC associated with NIV could be an additional means of preventing postextubation respiratory failure. We are hypothesising that treatment associating NIV with HFNC between NIV sessions may be more effective than HFNC alone and may reduce the reintubation rate in patients at high risk. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is an investigator-initiated, multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing HFNC alone or with NIV sessions during the postextubation period in patients at high risk of extubation failure in the ICU. Six hundred patients will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio in two groups according to the strategy of oxygenation after extubation. The primary outcome is the reintubation rate within the 7 days following planned extubation. Secondary outcomes include the number of patients who meet the criteria for moderate/severe respiratory failure, ICU length of stay and mortality up to day 90. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the ethics committee and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03121482

Autoantibodies against type I IFNs in patients with life-threatening COVID-19

Interindividual clinical variability in the course of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is vast. We report that at least 101 of 987 patients with life-threatening coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia had neutralizing immunoglobulin G (IgG) autoantibodies (auto-Abs) against interferon-w (IFN-w) (13 patients), against the 13 types of IFN-a (36), or against both (52) at the onset of critical disease; a few also had auto-Abs against the other three type I IFNs. The auto-Abs neutralize the ability of the corresponding type I IFNs to block SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro. These auto-Abs were not found in 663 individuals with asymptomatic or mild SARS-CoV-2 infection and were present in only 4 of 1227 healthy individuals. Patients with auto-Abs were aged 25 to 87 years and 95 of the 101 were men. A B cell autoimmune phenocopy of inborn errors of type I IFN immunity accounts for life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia in at least 2.6% of women and 12.5% of men

Predictors of Intubation in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Treated With a Noninvasive Oxygenation Strategy*:

International audienceObjectives: In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula oxygen are alternative strategies to conventional oxygen therapy. Endotracheal intubation is frequently needed in these patients with a risk of delay, and early predictors of failure may help clinicians to decide early. We aimed to identify factors associated with intubation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with different noninvasive oxygenation techniques. Design: Post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial. Setting: Twenty-three ICUs. Patients: Patients with a respiratory rate greater than 25 breaths/min and a Pao(2)/Fio(2) ratio less than or equal to 300mm Hg. Intervention: Patients were treated with standard oxygen, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, or noninvasive ventilation. Measurement and Main Results: Respiratory variables one hour after treatment initiation. Under standard oxygen, patients with a respiratory rate greater than or equal to 30 breaths/min were more likely to need intubation (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.13-6.75; p = 0.03). One hour after high-flow nasal cannula oxygen initiation, increased heart rate was the only factor associated with intubation. One hour after noninvasive ventilation initiation, a Pao(2)/Fio(2) ratio less than or equal to 200 mm Hg and a tidal volume greater than 9 mL/kg of predicted body weight were independent predictors of intubation (adjusted odds ratio, 4.26; 95% CI, 1.62-11.16; p = 0.003 and adjusted odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.22-8.06; p = 0.02, respectively). A tidal volume above 9 mL/kg during noninvasive ventilation remained independently associated with 90-day mortality. Conclusions: In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure breathing spontaneously, the respiratory rate was a predictor of intubation under standard oxygen, but not under high-flow nasal cannula oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. A Pao(2)/Fio(2) below 200mm Hg and a high tidal volume greater than 9mL/kg were the two strong predictors of intubation under noninvasive ventilation

High flow nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the safety and efficacy of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. We identified randomized controlled trials that compared HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy. We pooled data and report summary estimates of effect using relative risk for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference or standardized mean difference for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane tool and certainty in pooled effect estimates using GRADE methods. RESULTS: We included 9 RCTs (n = 2093 patients). We found no difference in mortality in patients treated with HFNC (relative risk [RR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.31, moderate certainty) compared to conventional oxygen therapy. We found a decreased risk of requiring intubation (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.99) or escalation of oxygen therapy (defined as crossover to HFNC in the control group, or initiation of non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation in either group) favouring HFNC-treated patients (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.98), although certainty in both outcomes was low due to imprecision and issues related to risk of bias. HFNC had no effect on intensive care unit length of stay (mean difference [MD] 1.38 days more, 95% CI 0.90 days fewer to 3.66 days more, low certainty), hospital length of stay (MD 0.85 days fewer, 95% CI 2.07 days fewer to 0.37 days more, moderate certainty), patient reported comfort (SMD 0.12 lower, 95% CI 0.61 lower to 0.37 higher, very low certainty) or patient reported dyspnea (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.16 lower, 95% CI 1.10 lower to 1.42 higher, low certainty). Complications of treatment were variably reported amongst included studies, but little harm was associated with HFNC use. CONCLUSION: In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, HFNC may decrease the need for tracheal intubation without impacting mortality