Convolutamydine A and synthetic analogues have antinociceptive properties in mice

AbstractConvolutamydine A, an oxindole that originated from a marine bryozoan, has several biological effects. In this study, we aimed to investigate the antinociceptive effects of convolutamydine A and two new synthetic analogues.Convolutamydine A and the two analogues were given orally to assess their ability to induce antinociceptive effects. Formalin-induced licking response, acetic acid-induced contortions, and hot plate models were used to characterize the effects of convolutamydine A and its analogues.Convolutamydine A (4,6-bromo-3-(2-oxopropyl)-3-hydroxy-2-oxindole), compound 1 (3-(2-oxopropyl)-3-hydroxy-2-oxindole), and compound 2 (5-bromo-3-(2-oxopropyl)-3-hydroxy-2-oxindole) caused peripheral antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects in the acetic acid-induced contortions and the formalin-induced licking models. Supraspinal effects were also observed in the hot plate model and were similar to those obtained with morphine. The peripheral effects were not mediated by the cholinergic or opioid systems. The antinociceptive effects of convolutamydine A seem to be mediated by all three systems (cholinergic, opioid, and nitric oxide systems), and the mechanism of action of compounds 1 and 2 involved cholinergic and nitric oxide-mediated mechanisms. Convolutamydine A and its analogues (compounds 1 and 2) showed good antinociceptive ability after systemic administration in acute pain models. The antinociceptive action mediated by cholinergic, opioid, and nitric oxide systems could explain why convolutamydine A, compound 1, and compound 2 retained their antinociceptive effects. The doses used were similar to the doses of morphine and were much lower than that of acetylsalicylic acid, the classical analgesic and anti-inflammatory drug.In conclusion, convolutamydine A and the two analogues demonstrated antinociceptive effects comparable to morphine's effects

ABC-SPH risk score for in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients : development, external validation and comparison with other available scores

The majority of available scores to assess mortality risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in the emergency department have high risk of bias. Therefore, this cohort aimed to develop and validate a score at hospital admission for predicting in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients and to compare this score with other existing ones. Consecutive patients (≥ 18 years) with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the participating hospitals were included. Logistic regression analysis was performed to develop a prediction model for in-hospital mortality, based on the 3978 patients admitted between March-July, 2020. The model was validated in the 1054 patients admitted during August-September, as well as in an external cohort of 474 Spanish patients. Median (25-75th percentile) age of the model-derivation cohort was 60 (48-72) years, and in-hospital mortality was 20.3%. The validation cohorts had similar age distribution and in-hospital mortality. Seven significant variables were included in the risk score: age, blood urea nitrogen, number of comorbidities, C-reactive protein, SpO/FiO ratio, platelet count, and heart rate. The model had high discriminatory value (AUROC 0.844, 95% CI 0.829-0.859), which was confirmed in the Brazilian (0.859 [95% CI 0.833-0.885]) and Spanish (0.894 [95% CI 0.870-0.919]) validation cohorts, and displayed better discrimination ability than other existing scores. It is implemented in a freely available online risk calculator (https://abc2sph.com/). An easy-to-use rapid scoring system based on characteristics of COVID-19 patients commonly available at hospital presentation was designed and validated for early stratification of in-hospital mortality risk of patients with COVID-19

ABC₂-SPH risk score for in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients

Objectives: The majority of available scores to assess mortality risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in the emergency department have high risk of bias. Therefore, this cohort aimed to develop and validate a score at hospital admission for predicting in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients and to compare this score with other existing ones. Methods: Consecutive patients (≥ 18 years) with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the participating hospitals were included. Logistic regression analysis was performed to develop a prediction model for in-hospital mortality, based on the 3978 patients admitted between March–July, 2020. The model was validated in the 1054 patients admitted during August–September, as well as in an external cohort of 474 Spanish patients. Results: Median (25–75th percentile) age of the model-derivation cohort was 60 (48–72) years, and in-hospital mortality was 20.3%. The validation cohorts had similar age distribution and in-hospital mortality. Seven significant variables were included in the risk score: age, blood urea nitrogen, number of comorbidities, C-reactive protein, SpO2/FiO2 ratio, platelet count, and heart rate. The model had high discriminatory value (AUROC 0.844, 95% CI 0.829–0.859), which was confirmed in the Brazilian (0.859 [95% CI 0.833–0.885]) and Spanish (0.894 [95% CI 0.870–0.919]) validation cohorts, and displayed better discrimination ability than other existing scores. It is implemented in a freely available online risk calculator (https://abc2sph.com/). Conclusions: An easy-to-use rapid scoring system based on characteristics of COVID-19 patients commonly available at hospital presentation was designed and validated for early stratification of in-hospital mortality risk of patients with COVID-19.</p

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used