Time-Dependent Alterations in Liver Oxidative Stress due to Ethanol and Acetaldehyde

Binge drinking is a major public health issue and ethanol-related liver insult may play a major role in the pathology of alcoholic liver disease. However, the degree of oxidative stress, cell death and contribution of acetaldehyde to liver damage over a 24-h period has yet to be determined. Herein, we aimed to investigate the effect of acute alcohol and elevated acetaldehyde levels on hepatic oxidative damage, apoptosis, and antioxidant enzyme activity over a 24-h period. Male Wistar rats were divided into four groups and animals were pre-injected (intraperitonially [i.p.]) with either saline (0.15 mol/L) or cyanamide (5-mmol/kg body weight), followed by either saline (0.15 mol/L) or ethanol (75-mmol/kg bodyweight). After 2.5, 6 and 24 h, hepatic cytosolic and mitochondrial fractions were analysed for indices of oxidative stress. At 2.5 h, cytosolic glutathione and malondialdehyde levels were significantly reduced and increased, respectively, with alcohol treatment. Caspase-3 activity and cytochrome c levels were increased with alcohol treatment at 24 h. The combination of cyanamide and alcohol treatment at 24 h led to a significant increase in serum alanine aminotransferase levels, and reduced albumin and total protein levels. Furthermore, glutathione peroxidase activity and glutathione reductase activity were significantly decreased and increased, respectively. Finally, superoxide dismutase activity was decreased in cytosol and increased in the mitochondria after cyanamide and ethanol treatment, respectively. This study indicates a complex differential effect of alcohol and acetaldehyde, whereby alcohol toxicity in the mitochondria takes place throughout the 24-h period, but raised acetaldehyde has a further detrimental effect on liver function

The attitudes of owners and veterinary professionals in the United Kingdom to the risk of adverse events associated with using non- steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to treat dogs with osteoarthritis

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly prescribed by veterinary surgeons for the treatment of canine osteoarthritis, and affected dogs may receive these drugs for long periods of time. Whilst short term administration of NSAIDs to dogs is linked to adverse events such as gastrointestinal haemorrhage and renal injury, reports of adverse events associated with their long-term administration are limited in the veterinary literature. This study aimed to investigate the attitudes towards the long term use of NSAIDs for canine osteoarthritis held by three groups who manage osteoarthritic dogs in the United Kingdom: dog owners, veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. A qualitative methodology was adopted, using semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Thematic analysis of these data identified three themes: awareness of potential risks; recognition of adverse events; and influence of risk perception on the use of NSAIDs. Awareness of, and concern about, the risk of adverse events associated with NSAID administration to dogs with osteoarthritis was high in all groups, with veterinary surgeons being one of a variety of information sources used by owners to acquire this knowledge. Veterinary surgeons described difficulty in recognising, managing and avoiding adverse events associated with NSAIDs. When adverse events occurred, a wide range of management approaches were adopted ranging from a brief drug respite to permanent cessation of administration of any NSAIDs to that dog. Commonly employed approaches to minimise risk included dose reduction and screening blood tests. This study describes a high level of concern about the risks associated with long term NSAID administration to dogs with osteoarthritis and highlights a diverse range of strategies employed to minimise these risks. The evidence base for these strategies is poor, and this may present a risk to animal welfare if the affected dogs are not receiving adequate analgesia. In order to address this, more accurate and comprehensive data must be supplied to both veterinary professionals and owners on the true frequency of adverse events associated with long term administration of veterinary NSAIDs and how best to avoid them

Attitudes and behaviour towards convenience food and food waste in the United Kingdom

Households in the UK discard much food. A reduction in such waste to mitigate environmental impact is part of UK government policy. This study investigated whether household food waste is linked to a lifestyle reliant on convenience food in younger consumers. A survey of 928 UK residents aged 18-40 years and responsible for the household food shopping (male n = 278; female n = 650) completed an online questionnaire designed to measure attitudes to convenience food and to quantify household food waste. Cluster analysis of 24 food-related lifestyle factors identified 5 consumer groups. General linear modelling techniques were used to test relationships between the purchase frequency of convenience food and household food waste. From the cluster analysis, five distinct convenience profiles emerged comprising: ‘epicures’ (n = 135), ‘traditional consumers’ (n = 255), ‘casual consumers’ (n = 246), ‘food detached consumers’ (n = 151) and ‘kitchen evaders’ (n = 141). Casual consumers and kitchen evaders were the most reliant on convenience food and notably were the most wasteful. The demographic profile of kitchen evaders matched the population groups currently targeted by UK food waste policy. Casual consumers represent a new and distinct group characterised by “buy a lot and waste a lot” behaviour. Household size, packaging format, price-awareness and marketing all appear to influence levels of food waste. However, it seems that subtle behavioural and sociocultural factors also have impact. Further research is needed to elucidate the factors that mediate the positive association between the purchase of convenience food and reported food waste in order to inform food waste policy and initiatives

Therapist Effects and the Impact of Early Therapeutic Alliance on Symptomatic Outcome in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Few studies have examined therapist effects and therapeutic alliance (TA) in treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Therapist effects are the differences in outcomes achieved by different therapists. TA is the quality of the bond and level of agreement regarding the goals and tasks of therapy. Prior research suffers the methodological problem that the allocation of therapist was not randomized, meaning therapist effects may be confounded with selection effects. We used data from a randomized controlled treatment trial of 296 people with CFS. The trial compared pragmatic rehabilitation (PR), a nurse led, home based self-help treatment, a counselling-based treatment called supportive listening (SL), with general practitioner treatment as usual. Therapist allocation was randomized. Primary outcome measures, fatigue and physical functioning were assessed blind to treatment allocation. TA was measured in the PR and SL arms. Regression models allowing for interactions were used to examine relationships between (i) therapist and therapeutic alliance, and (ii) therapist and average treatment effect (the difference in mean outcomes between different treatment conditions). We found no therapist effects. We found no relationship between TA and the average treatment effect of a therapist. One therapist formed stronger alliances when delivering PR compared to when delivering SL (effect size 0.76, SE 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.41). In these therapies for CFS, TA does not influence symptomatic outcome. The lack of significant therapist effects on outcome may result from the trial’s rigorous quality control, or random therapist allocation, eliminating selection effects. Further research is needed

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

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