Alternative Promoters Influence Alternative Splicing at the Genomic Level

Background: More and more experiments have shown that transcription and mRNA processing are not two independent events but are tightly coupled to each other. Both promoter and transcription rate were found to influence alternative splicing. More than half of human genes have alternative promoters, but it is still not clear why there are so many alternative promoters and what their biological roles are. Methodology/Principal Findings: In this study, we explored whether there is a functional correlation between alternative promoters and alternative splicing by a genome-wide analysis of human and mouse genes. We constructed a large data set of genes with alternative promoter and alternative splicing annotations. By analyzing these genes, we showed that genes with alternative promoters tended to demonstrate alternative splicing compare to genes with single promoter, and, genes with more alternative promoters tend to have more alternative splicing variants. Furthermore, transcripts from different alternative promoters tended to splice differently. Conclusions/Significance: Thus at the genomic level, alternative promoters are positively correlated with alternativ

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

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

Effect of alirocumab on mortality after acute coronary syndromes. An analysis of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES randomized clinical trial

Background: Previous trials of PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9) inhibitors demonstrated reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events, but not death. We assessed the effects of alirocumab on death after index acute coronary syndrome. Methods: ODYSSEY OUTCOMES (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) was a double-blind, randomized comparison of alirocumab or placebo in 18 924 patients who had an ACS 1 to 12 months previously and elevated atherogenic lipoproteins despite intensive statin therapy. Alirocumab dose was blindly titrated to target achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) between 25 and 50 mg/dL. We examined the effects of treatment on all-cause death and its components, cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death, with log-rank testing. Joint semiparametric models tested associations between nonfatal cardiovascular events and cardiovascular or noncardiovascular death. Results: Median follow-up was 2.8 years. Death occurred in 334 (3.5%) and 392 (4.1%) patients, respectively, in the alirocumab and placebo groups (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.98; P=0.03, nominal P value). This resulted from nonsignificantly fewer cardiovascular (240 [2.5%] vs 271 [2.9%]; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.05; P=0.15) and noncardiovascular (94 [1.0%] vs 121 [1.3%]; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.01; P=0.06) deaths with alirocumab. In a prespecified analysis of 8242 patients eligible for ≥3 years follow-up, alirocumab reduced death (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.94; P=0.01). Patients with nonfatal cardiovascular events were at increased risk for cardiovascular and noncardiovascular deaths (P<0.0001 for the associations). Alirocumab reduced total nonfatal cardiovascular events (P<0.001) and thereby may have attenuated the number of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular deaths. A post hoc analysis found that, compared to patients with lower LDL-C, patients with baseline LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL (2.59 mmol/L) had a greater absolute risk of death and a larger mortality benefit from alirocumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.90; Pinteraction=0.007). In the alirocumab group, all-cause death declined wit h achieved LDL-C at 4 months of treatment, to a level of approximately 30 mg/dL (adjusted P=0.017 for linear trend). Conclusions: Alirocumab added to intensive statin therapy has the potential to reduce death after acute coronary syndrome, particularly if treatment is maintained for ≥3 years, if baseline LDL-C is ≥100 mg/dL, or if achieved LDL-C is low. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01663402

Patterns of Sedation Weaning in Critically Ill Children Recovering From Acute Respiratory Failure

Objective: To characterize sedation weaning patterns in typical practice settings among children recovering from critical illness. Design: A descriptive secondary analysis of data that were prospectively collected during the prerandomization phase (January to July 2009) of a clinical trial of sedation management. Setting: Twenty-two PICUs across the United States. Patients: The sample included 145 patients, aged 2 weeks to 17 years, mechanically ventilated for acute respiratory failure who received at least five consecutive days of opioid exposure. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Group comparisons were made between patients with an intermittent weaning pattern, defined as a 20% or greater increase in daily opioid dose after the start of weaning, and the remaining patients defined as having a steady weaning pattern. Demographic and clinical characteristics, tolerance to sedatives, and iatrogenic withdrawal symptoms were evaluated. Sixty-six patients (46%) were intermittently weaned; 79 patients were steadily weaned. Prior to weaning, intermittently weaned patients received higher peak and cumulative doses and longer exposures to opioids and benzodiazepines, demonstrated more sedative tolerance (58% vs 41%), and received more chloral hydrate and barbiturates compared with steadily weaned patients. During weaning, intermittently weaned patients assessed for withdrawal had a higher incidence of Withdrawal Assessment Tool-version 1 scores of greater than or equal to 3 (85% vs 46%) and received more sedative classes compared with steadily weaned patients. Conclusions: This study characterizes sedative administration practices for pediatric patients prior to and during weaning from sedation after critical illness. It provides a novel methodology for describing weaning in an at-risk pediatric population that may be helpful in future research on weaning strategies to prevent iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome

Patterns of Sedation Weaning in Critically Ill Children Recovering From Acute Respiratory Failure

Objective: To characterize sedation weaning patterns in typical practice settings among children recovering from critical illness. Design: A descriptive secondary analysis of data that were prospectively collected during the prerandomization phase (January to July 2009) of a clinical trial of sedation management. Setting: Twenty-two PICUs across the United States. Patients: The sample included 145 patients, aged 2 weeks to 17 years, mechanically ventilated for acute respiratory failure who received at least five consecutive days of opioid exposure. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Group comparisons were made between patients with an intermittent weaning pattern, defined as a 20% or greater increase in daily opioid dose after the start of weaning, and the remaining patients defined as having a steady weaning pattern. Demographic and clinical characteristics, tolerance to sedatives, and iatrogenic withdrawal symptoms were evaluated. Sixty-six patients (46%) were intermittently weaned; 79 patients were steadily weaned. Prior to weaning, intermittently weaned patients received higher peak and cumulative doses and longer exposures to opioids and benzodiazepines, demonstrated more sedative tolerance (58% vs 41%), and received more chloral hydrate and barbiturates compared with steadily weaned patients. During weaning, intermittently weaned patients assessed for withdrawal had a higher incidence of Withdrawal Assessment Tool-version 1 scores of greater than or equal to 3 (85% vs 46%) and received more sedative classes compared with steadily weaned patients. Conclusions: This study characterizes sedative administration practices for pediatric patients prior to and during weaning from sedation after critical illness. It provides a novel methodology for describing weaning in an at-risk pediatric population that may be helpful in future research on weaning strategies to prevent iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome