The effects of acute leucine or leucine–glutamine co-ingestion on recovery from eccentrically biased exercise

This study investigated the effects of leucine or leucine + glutamine supplementation on recovery from eccentric exercise. In a double-blind independent groups design, 23 men were randomly assigned to a leucine (0.087 g/kg; n = 8), leucine + glutamine (0.087 g/kg + glutamine 0.3 g/kg; n = 8) or placebo (0.3 g/kg maltodextrin; n = 7) group. Participants performed 5 sets of drop jumps, with each set comprising 20 repetitions. Isometric knee-extensor strength, counter-movement jump (CMJ) height, delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) and creatine kinase (CK) were measured at baseline, 1, 24, 48 h and 72 h post-exercise. There was a time × group interaction for isometric strength, CMJ and CK (P < 0.05), with differences between the leucine + glutamine and placebo group at 48 h and 72 h for strength (P = 0.013; d = 1.43 and P < 0.001; d = 2.06), CMJ (P = 0.008; d = 0.87 and P = 0.019; d = 1.17) and CK at 24 h (P = 0.012; d = 0.54) and 48 h (P = 0.010; d = 1.37). The leucine group produced higher strength at 72 h compared to placebo (P = 0.007; d = 1.65) and lower CK at 24 h (P = 0.039; d = 0.63) and 48 h (P = 0.022; d = 1.03). Oral leucine or leucine + glutamine increased the rate of recovery compared to placebo after eccentric exercise. These findings highlight potential benefits of co-ingesting these amino acids to ameliorate recovery

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

Advancing Biological Understanding and Therapeutics Discovery with Small-Molecule Probes

Small-molecule probes can illuminate biological processes and aid in the assessment of emerging therapeutic targets by perturbing biological systems in a manner distinct from other experimental approaches. Despite the tremendous promise of chemical tools for investigating biology and disease, small-molecule probes were unavailable for most targets and pathways as recently as a decade ago. In 2005, the U.S. National Institutes of Health launched the decade-long Molecular Libraries Program with the intent of innovating in and broadening access to small-molecule science. This Perspective describes how novel small-molecule probes identified through the program are enabling the exploration of biological pathways and therapeutic hypotheses not otherwise testable. These experiences illustrate how small-molecule probes can help bridge the chasm between biological research and the development of medicines, but also highlight the need to innovate the science of therapeutic discovery.Chemistry and Chemical Biolog

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

Closing gastroschisis: The good, the bad, and the not-so ugly

Purpose: The diagnosis of closing or closed gastroschisis is made when bowel is incarcerated within a closed or nearly closed ring of fascia, usually with associated bowel atresia. It has been described as having a high morbidity and mortality.Methods: A retrospective review of closing gastroschisis cases (n = 53) at six children\u27s hospitals between 2000 and 2016 was completed after IRB approval.Results: A new classification system for this disease was developed to represent the spectrum of the disease: Type A (15%): ischemic bowel that is constricted at the ring but without atresia; Type B (51%): intestinal atresia with a mass of ischemic, but viable, external bowel (owing to constriction at the ring); Type C (26%): closing ring with nonviable external bowel +/- atresia; and Type D (8%): completely closed defect with either a nubbin of exposed tissue or no external bowel. Overall, 87% of infants survived, and long-term data are provided for each type.Conclusions: This new classification system better captures the spectrum of disease and describes the expected long-term results for counseling. Unless the external bowel in a closing gastroschisis is clearly necrotic, it should be reduced and evaluated later. Survival was found to be much better than previously reported.Type of study: Retrospective case series with no comparison group.Level of evidence: Level IV

Heller Myotomy Is Superior to Balloon Dilatation or Botulinum Injection in Children with Achalasia: A Two-Center Review

Introduction: Achalasia is an uncommon disorder in children. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment for achalasia. We investigate the effectiveness of symptom relief in patients who underwent endoscopic treatments versus Heller myotomy (HM). Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all children (age 0–18 years) treated for achalasia at two pediatric hospitals from 2004 to 2014. Demographics, presenting symptoms, outcomes, and complications were analyzed. Results: Twenty-three patients (61% male) were identified with a mean age at diagnosis of 11.6 ± 5.0 years. About 47.8% of the cohort had no comorbidities. Common presenting symptoms included weight loss/failure to thrive (87.0%), emesis (69.6%), and dysphagia (69.6%). Mean time from symptom onset to diagnosis was 18 ± 18.9 months. Nine patients underwent laparoscopic HM as their primary treatment, whereas 14 received esophageal dilatation (ED) as their first-line therapy. Patients who underwent ED as their initial treatment were younger (9.92 versus 15.6 years, P  = .047). Patients who underwent HM were more likely to attain symptom resolution compared to those managed with ED alone ( P  = .004). Of the 14 patients who underwent ED initially, 10 subsequently required HM due to persistent symptoms. None of the 4 patients who underwent ED alone achieved long-term symptom relief and, on the average, required an increased number of procedures compared to their HM counterparts (5.25 versus 2.47, P  = .010). There was a trend toward increased intraoperative mucosal perforation in patients who underwent preoperative ED and botulinum injections. Conclusion: Our data suggest that HM is superior to balloon dilatation or botulinum injection in children with achalasia. We conclude that HM should be recommended for newly diagnosed children with achalasia as a first-line therapy