Exercise Intensity and Duration Effects on In Vivo Immunity

PURPOSE: To examine the effects of intensity and duration of exercise stress on induction of in vivo immunity in humans using experimental contact hypersensitivity (CHS) with the novel antigen diphenylcyclopropenone (DPCP). METHODS: Sixty-four healthy males completed either 30 min running at 60% V O2peak (30MI), 30 min running at 80% V O2peak (30HI), 120 min running at 60% V O2peak (120MI), or seated rest (CON). Twenty min later, the subjects received a sensitizing dose of DPCP; and 4 wk later, the strength of immune reactivity was quantified by measuring the cutaneous responses to a low dose-series challenge with DPCP on the upper inner arm. Circulating epinephrine, norepinephrine and cortisol were measured before, after, and 1 h after exercise or CON. Next, to understand better whether the decrease in CHS response on 120MI was due to local inflammatory or T-cell-mediated processes, in a crossover design, 11 healthy males performed 120MI and CON, and cutaneous responses to a dose series of the irritant, croton oil (CO), were assessed on the upper inner arm. RESULTS: Immune induction by DPCP was impaired by 120MI (skinfold thickness -67% vs CON; P < 0.05). However, immune induction was unaffected by 30MI and 30HI despite elevated circulating catecholamines (30HI vs pre: P < 0.01) and greater circulating cortisol post 30HI (vs CON; P < 0.01). There was no effect of 120MI on skin irritant responses to CO. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged moderate-intensity exercise, but not short-lasting high- or short-lasting moderate-intensity exercise, decreases the induction of in vivo immunity. No effect of prolonged moderate-intensity exercise on the skin's response to irritant challenge points toward a suppression of cell-mediated immunity in the observed decrease in CHS. Diphenylcyclopropenone provides an attractive tool to assess the effect of exercise on in vivo immunity

Clinical symptoms, signs and tests for identification of impending and current water-loss dehydration in older people (Review)

BackgroundThere is evidence that water-loss dehydration is common in older people and associated with many causes of morbidity and mortality.However, it is unclear what clinical symptoms, signs and tests may be used to identify early dehydration in older people, so that support can be mobilised to improve hydration before health and well-being are compromised.ObjectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of state (one time), minimally invasive clinical symptoms, signs and tests to be used as screeningtests for detecting water-loss dehydration in older people by systematically reviewing studies that have measured a reference standard and at least one index test in people aged 65 years and over. Water-loss dehydration was defined primarily as including everyone with either impending or current water-loss dehydration (including all those with serum osmolality ≥ 295 mOsm/kg as being dehydrated).Search methodsStructured search strategies were developed for MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL, LILACS, DARE and HTAdatabases (The Cochrane Library), and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Reference lists of included studiesand identified relevant reviews were checked. Authors of included studies were contacted for details of further studies.Selection criteriaTitles and abstracts were scanned and all potentially relevant studies obtained in full text. Inclusion of full text studies was assessed independently in duplicate, and disagreements resolved by a third author. We wrote to authors of all studies that appeared to have collected data on at least one reference standard and at least one index test, and in at least 10 people aged ≥ 65 years, even where no comparative analysis has been published, requesting original dataset so we could create 2 x 2 tables.Data collection and analysis.Diagnostic accuracy of each test was assessed against the best available reference standard for water-loss dehydration (serum or plasma osmolality cut-off≥295mOsm/kg, serumosmolarity or weight change) within each study. For each index test study data were presented in forest plots of sensitivity and specificity. The primary target condition was water-loss dehydration (including either impending or current water-loss dehydration). Secondary target conditions were intended as current (> 300 mOsm/kg) and impending (295 to 300 mOsm/kg) water-loss dehydration, but restricted to current dehydration in the final review.We conducted bivariate random-effects meta-analyses (Stata/IC, StataCorp) for index tests where there were at least four studies and study datasets could be pooled to construct sensitivity and specificity summary estimates. We assigned the same approach for index tests with continuous outcome data for each of three pre-specified cut-off points investigated.Pre-set minimum sensitivity of a useful test was 60%, minimum specificity 75%. As pre-specifying three cut-offs for each continuoustest may have led to missing a cut-off with useful sensitivity and specificity, we conducted post-hoc exploratory analyses to createreceiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves where there appeared some possibility of a useful cut-off missed by the original three.These analyses enabled assessment of which tests may be worth assessing in further research. A further exploratory analysis assessed the value of combining the best two index tests where each had some individual predictive ability.Main resultsThere were few published studies of the diagnostic accuracy of state (one time), minimally invasive clinical symptoms, signs or tests tobe used as screening tests for detecting water-loss dehydration in older people. Therefore, to complete this review we sought, analysed and included raw datasets that included a reference standard and an index test in people aged ≥ 65 years.We included three studies with published diagnostic accuracy data and a further 21 studies provided datasets that we analysed. Weassessed 67 tests (at three cut-offs for each continuous outcome) for diagnostic accuracy of water-loss dehydration (primary targetcondition) and of current dehydration (secondary target condition).Only three tests showed any ability to diagnose water-loss dehydration (including both impending and current water-loss dehydration) as stand-alone tests: expressing fatigue (sensitivity 0.71 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.96), specificity 0.75 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.85), in one study with 71 participants, but two additional studies had lower sensitivity); missing drinks between meals (sensitivity 1.00 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.00), specificity 0.77 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.86), in one study with 71 participants) and BIA resistance at 50 kHz (sensitivities 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.90) and specificities of 1.00 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.00) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.99) in 15 and 22 people respectively for two studies, but with sensitivities of 0.54 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.81) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.79) and specificities of 0.50 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.84) and 0.19 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.21) in 21 and 1947 people respectively in two other studies). In post-hoc ROC plots drinks intake, urine osmolality and axillial moisture also showed limited diagnostic accuracy. No test was consistently useful in more than one study.Combining two tests so that an individual both missed some drinks between meals and expressed fatigue was sensitive at 0.71 (95%CI 0.29 to 0.96) and specific at 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.97).There was sufficient evidence to suggest that several stand-alone tests often used to assess dehydration in older people (including fluid intake, urine specific gravity, urine colour, urine volume, heart rate, dry mouth, feeling thirsty and BIA assessment of intracellular water or extracellular water) are not useful, and should not be relied on individually as ways of assessing presence or absence of dehydration in older people.No tests were found consistently useful in diagnosing current water-loss dehydration.Authors’ conclusionsThere is limited evidence of the diagnostic utility of any individual clinical symptom, sign or test or combination of tests to indicatewater-loss dehydration in older people. Individual tests should not be used in this population to indicate dehydration; they miss a highproportion of people with dehydration, and wrongly label those who are adequately hydrated.Promising tests identified by this review need to be further assessed, as do new methods in development. Combining several tests may improve diagnostic accuracy

Omecamtiv mecarbil in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, GALACTIC‐HF: baseline characteristics and comparison with contemporary clinical trials

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC‐HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC‐HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials. Methods and Results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) ≥ II, EF ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for HF or history of hospitalization/ emergency department visit for HF within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic‐guided dosing: 25, 37.5 or 50 mg bid). 8256 patients [male (79%), non‐white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean EF 27%, ischemic etiology in 54%, NYHA II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median NT‐proBNP 1971 pg/mL. HF therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary HF trials. GALACTIC‐HF randomized patients representative of recent HF registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure &lt; 100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate &lt; 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril‐valsartan at baseline (n = 1594). Conclusions: GALACTIC‐HF enrolled a well‐treated, high‐risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation