Autoimmune Disease Classification by Inverse Association with SNP Alleles

With multiple genome-wide association studies (GWAS) performed across autoimmune diseases, there is a great opportunity to study the homogeneity of genetic architectures across autoimmune disease. Previous approaches have been limited in the scope of their analysis and have failed to properly incorporate the direction of allele-specific disease associations for SNPs. In this work, we refine the notion of a genetic variation profile for a given disease to capture strength of association with multiple SNPs in an allele-specific fashion. We apply this method to compare genetic variation profiles of six autoimmune diseases: multiple sclerosis (MS), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), autoimmune thyroid disease (ATD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Crohn's disease (CD), and type 1 diabetes (T1D), as well as five non-autoimmune diseases. We quantify pair-wise relationships between these diseases and find two broad clusters of autoimmune disease where SNPs that make an individual susceptible to one class of autoimmune disease also protect from diseases in the other autoimmune class. We find that RA and AS form one such class, and MS and ATD another. We identify specific SNPs and genes with opposite risk profiles for these two classes. We furthermore explore individual SNPs that play an important role in defining similarities and differences between disease pairs. We present a novel, systematic, cross-platform approach to identify allele-specific relationships between disease pairs based on genetic variation as well as the individual SNPs which drive the relationships. While recognizing similarities between diseases might lead to identifying novel treatment options, detecting differences between diseases previously thought to be similar may point to key novel disease-specific genes and pathways

Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018.

Over the past decade, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) has formulated guidelines for the definition and interpretation of cell death from morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives. Since the field continues to expand and novel mechanisms that orchestrate multiple cell death pathways are unveiled, we propose an updated classification of cell death subroutines focusing on mechanistic and essential (as opposed to correlative and dispensable) aspects of the process. As we provide molecularly oriented definitions of terms including intrinsic apoptosis, extrinsic apoptosis, mitochondrial permeability transition (MPT)-driven necrosis, necroptosis, ferroptosis, pyroptosis, parthanatos, entotic cell death, NETotic cell death, lysosome-dependent cell death, autophagy-dependent cell death, immunogenic cell death, cellular senescence, and mitotic catastrophe, we discuss the utility of neologisms that refer to highly specialized instances of these processes. The mission of the NCCD is to provide a widely accepted nomenclature on cell death in support of the continued development of the field

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients

Trends and outcome of neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer: A retrospective analysis and critical assessment of a 10-year prospective national registry on behalf of the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project

Introduction: Preoperative treatment and adequate surgery increase local control in rectal cancer. However, modalities and indications for neoadjuvant treatment may be controversial. Aim of this study was to assess the trends of preoperative treatment and outcomes in patients with rectal cancer included in the Rectal Cancer Registry of the Spanish Associations of Surgeons. Method: This is a STROBE-compliant retrospective analysis of a prospective database. All patients operated on with curative intention included in the Rectal Cancer Registry were included. Analyses were performed to compare the use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment in three timeframes: I)2006–2009; II)2010–2013; III)2014–2017. Survival analyses were run for 3-year survival in timeframes I-II. Results: Out of 14,391 patients,8871 (61.6%) received neoadjuvant treatment. Long-course chemo/radiotherapy was the most used approach (79.9%), followed by short-course radiotherapy ± chemotherapy (7.6%). The use of neoadjuvant treatment for cancer of the upper third (15-11 cm) increased over time (31.5%vs 34.5%vs 38.6%,p = 0.0018). The complete regression rate slightly increased over time (15.6% vs 16% vs 18.5%; p = 0.0093); the proportion of patients with involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) went down from 8.2% to 7.3%and 5.5% (p = 0.0004). Neoadjuvant treatment significantly decreased positive CRM in lower third tumors (OR 0.71, 0.59–0.87, Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel P = 0.0008). Most ypN0 patients also received adjuvant therapy. In MR-defined stage III patients, preoperative treatment was associated with significantly longer local-recurrence-free survival (p < 0.0001), and cancer-specific survival (p < 0.0001). The survival benefit was smaller in upper third cancers. Conclusion: There was an increasing trend and a potential overuse of neoadjuvant treatment in cancer of the upper rectum. Most ypN0 patients received postoperative treatment. Involvement of CRM in lower third tumors was reduced after neoadjuvant treatment. Stage III and MRcN + benefited the most