Locating Truth in the Search for Certainty: A Comparison of Foundationalism in Irenaeus’ Second-Century Writings and in Twenty-First-Century Evangelicalism

With a vast library of literature written on Irenaeus of Lyons, this thesis seeks to offer particular insights regarding prominent secondary literature on the bishop and his legacy in modern evangelicalism. This essay finds that key literature positioned as introductions to Irenaeus do not integrate key sources which are necessary to establish the second-century context of his writings. Instead they rely on Irenaeus’ own account of his context, and a skewed, fourth-century, Eusebian generalisation of earliest Christianity. The mistake of deliberating ideas without analysis of those being targeted is echoed in evangelicalism and, in particular, evangelical appropriations of Irenaeus’ material. This essay also finds that language of the ‘obviousness’ of one’s ideology and claims to ‘common sense’ reduces non-Irenaean and non-evangelical ideologies from the level of ideas to the level of moral integrity. If this reduction is rushed, authors place their literature less in a genre of academic investigation on the level of ideas and closer to a rhetorical exhortation which aims to elevate certainty in the current self. This paper concludes that to engage in a discussion on the merit of ideas, in both Irenaeus studies and in evangelical appropriations of Irenaeus, critical empathy with non-Irenaean material or non-evangelical material must be demonstrated, respectively. Among secondary contributions, this paper seeks to incorporate a heightened esteem for Irenaeus’ other extant piece, Demonstration; includes a diagram and associated analysis of the bishop’s truth verification network not before illustrated; and includes the beginnings of a critique of the viewpoints that (a) fundamentalistic evangelicalism and its key tenets (like biblical inerrantism) existed from earliest Christianity, but also (b) that fundamentalistic evangelicalism began with Enlightenment thinking. Instead, this essay attempts to show that the foundationalism which is key to fundamentalistic evangelicalism existed in similar but not identical forms to those in the second century

Single-cell multi-omics analysis of the immune response in COVID-19

Funder: Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine; doi: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100001255Funder: University College London, Birkbeck MRC Doctoral Training ProgrammeFunder: The Jikei University School of MedicineFunder: Action Medical Research (GN2779)Funder: NIHR Clinical Lectureship (CL-2017-01-004)Funder: NIHR (ACF-2018-01-004) and the BMA FoundationFunder: Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (grant 2017-174169) and from Wellcome (WT211276/Z/18/Z and Sanger core grant WT206194)Funder: UKRI Innovation/Rutherford Fund Fellowship allocated by the MRC and the UK Regenerative Medicine Platform (MR/5005579/1 to M.Z.N.). M.Z.N. and K.B.M. have been funded by the Rosetrees Trust (M944)Funder: Barbour FoundationFunder: ERC Consolidator and EU MRG-Grammar awardsFunder: Versus Arthritis Cure Challenge Research Grant (21777), and an NIHR Research Professorship (RP-2017-08-ST2-002)Funder: European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL)Abstract: Analysis of human blood immune cells provides insights into the coordinated response to viral infections such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We performed single-cell transcriptome, surface proteome and T and B lymphocyte antigen receptor analyses of over 780,000 peripheral blood mononuclear cells from a cross-sectional cohort of 130 patients with varying severities of COVID-19. We identified expansion of nonclassical monocytes expressing complement transcripts (CD16+C1QA/B/C+) that sequester platelets and were predicted to replenish the alveolar macrophage pool in COVID-19. Early, uncommitted CD34+ hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells were primed toward megakaryopoiesis, accompanied by expanded megakaryocyte-committed progenitors and increased platelet activation. Clonally expanded CD8+ T cells and an increased ratio of CD8+ effector T cells to effector memory T cells characterized severe disease, while circulating follicular helper T cells accompanied mild disease. We observed a relative loss of IgA2 in symptomatic disease despite an overall expansion of plasmablasts and plasma cells. Our study highlights the coordinated immune response that contributes to COVID-19 pathogenesis and reveals discrete cellular components that can be targeted for therapy

Fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and idarubicin with gemtuzumab ozogamicin improves event-free survival in younger patients with newly diagnosed aml and overall survival in patients with npm1 and flt3 mutations

Purpose To determine the optimal induction chemotherapy regimen for younger adults with newly diagnosed AML without known adverse risk cytogenetics. Patients and Methods One thousand thirty-three patients were randomly assigned to intensified (fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and idarubicin [FLAG-Ida]) or standard (daunorubicin and Ara-C [DA]) induction chemotherapy, with one or two doses of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results There was no difference in remission rate after two courses between FLAG-Ida + GO and DA + GO (complete remission [CR] + CR with incomplete hematologic recovery 93% v 91%) or in day 60 mortality (4.3% v 4.6%). There was no difference in OS (66% v 63%; P = .41); however, the risk of relapse was lower with FLAG-Ida + GO (24% v 41%; P < .001) and 3-year event-free survival was higher (57% v 45%; P < .001). In patients with an NPM1 mutation (30%), 3-year OS was significantly higher with FLAG-Ida + GO (82% v 64%; P = .005). NPM1 measurable residual disease (MRD) clearance was also greater, with 88% versus 77% becoming MRD-negative in peripheral blood after cycle 2 (P = .02). Three-year OS was also higher in patients with a FLT3 mutation (64% v 54%; P = .047). Fewer transplants were performed in patients receiving FLAG-Ida + GO (238 v 278; P = .02). There was no difference in outcome according to the number of GO doses, although NPM1 MRD clearance was higher with two doses in the DA arm. Patients with core binding factor AML treated with DA and one dose of GO had a 3-year OS of 96% with no survival benefit from FLAG-Ida + GO. Conclusion Overall, FLAG-Ida + GO significantly reduced relapse without improving OS. However, exploratory analyses show that patients with NPM1 and FLT3 mutations had substantial improvements in OS. By contrast, in patients with core binding factor AML, outcomes were excellent with DA + GO with no FLAG-Ida benefit

Tracking early lung cancer metastatic dissemination in TRACERx using ctDNA

Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) can be used to detect and profile residual tumour cells persisting after curative intent therapy1. The study of large patient cohorts incorporating longitudinal plasma sampling and extended follow-up is required to determine the role of ctDNA as a phylogenetic biomarker of relapse in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here we developed ctDNA methods tracking a median of 200 mutations identified in resected NSCLC tissue across 1,069 plasma samples collected from 197 patients enrolled in the TRACERx study2. A lack of preoperative ctDNA detection distinguished biologically indolent lung adenocarcinoma with good clinical outcome. Postoperative plasma analyses were interpreted within the context of standard-of-care radiological surveillance and administration of cytotoxic adjuvant therapy. Landmark analyses of plasma samples collected within 120 days after surgery revealed ctDNA detection in 25% of patients, including 49% of all patients who experienced clinical relapse; 3 to 6 monthly ctDNA surveillance identified impending disease relapse in an additional 20% of landmark-negative patients. We developed a bioinformatic tool (ECLIPSE) for non-invasive tracking of subclonal architecture at low ctDNA levels. ECLIPSE identified patients with polyclonal metastatic dissemination, which was associated with a poor clinical outcome. By measuring subclone cancer cell fractions in preoperative plasma, we found that subclones seeding future metastases were significantly more expanded compared with non-metastatic subclones. Our findings will support (neo)adjuvant trial advances and provide insights into the process of metastatic dissemination using low-ctDNA-level liquid biopsy

Epidemiological characteristics, practice of ventilation, and clinical outcome in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units from 16 countries (PRoVENT): an international, multicentre, prospective study

Background Scant information exists about the epidemiological characteristics and outcome of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and how ventilation is managed in these individuals. We aimed to establish the epidemiological characteristics of patients at risk of ARDS, describe ventilation management in this population, and assess outcomes compared with people at no risk of ARDS. Methods PRoVENT (PRactice of VENTilation in critically ill patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation) is an international, multicentre, prospective study undertaken at 119 ICUs in 16 countries worldwide. All patients aged 18 years or older who were receiving mechanical ventilation in participating ICUs during a 1-week period between January, 2014, and January, 2015, were enrolled into the study. The Lung Injury Prediction Score (LIPS) was used to stratify risk of ARDS, with a score of 4 or higher defining those at risk of ARDS. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients at risk of ARDS. Secondary outcomes included ventilatory management (including tidal volume [VT] expressed as mL/kg predicted bodyweight [PBW], and positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] expressed as cm H2O), development of pulmonary complications, and clinical outcomes. The PRoVENT study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01868321. The study has been completed. Findings Of 3023 patients screened for the study, 935 individuals fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these critically ill patients, 282 were at risk of ARDS (30%, 95% CI 27\u201333), representing 0\ub714 cases per ICU bed over a 1-week period. VT was similar for patients at risk and not at risk of ARDS (median 7\ub76 mL/kg PBW [IQR 6\ub77\u20139\ub71] vs 7\ub79 mL/kg PBW [6\ub78\u20139\ub71]; p=0\ub7346). PEEP was higher in patients at risk of ARDS compared with those not at risk (median 6\ub70 cm H2O [IQR 5\ub70\u20138\ub70] vs 5\ub70 cm H2O [5\ub70\u20137\ub70]; p&lt;0\ub70001). The prevalence of ARDS in patients at risk of ARDS was higher than in individuals not at risk of ARDS (19/260 [7%] vs 17/556 [3%]; p=0\ub7004). Compared with individuals not at risk of ARDS, patients at risk of ARDS had higher in-hospital mortality (86/543 [16%] vs 74/232 [32%]; p&lt;0\ub70001), ICU mortality (62/533 [12%] vs 66/227 [29%]; p&lt;0\ub70001), and 90-day mortality (109/653 [17%] vs 88/282 [31%]; p&lt;0\ub70001). VT did not differ between patients who did and did not develop ARDS (p=0\ub7471 for those at risk of ARDS; p=0\ub7323 for those not at risk). Interpretation Around a third of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU were at risk of ARDS. Pulmonary complications occur frequently in patients at risk of ARDS and their clinical outcome is worse compared with those not at risk of ARDS. There is potential for improvement in the management of patients without ARDS. Further refinements are needed for prediction of ARDS

Epidemiological characteristics, practice of ventilation, and clinical outcome in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units from 16 countries (PRoVENT): an international, multicentre, prospective study

Background Scant information exists about the epidemiological characteristics and outcome of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and how ventilation is managed in these individuals. We aimed to establish the epidemiological characteristics of patients at risk of ARDS, describe ventilation management in this population, and assess outcomes compared with people at no risk of ARDS. Methods PRoVENT (PRactice of VENTilation in critically ill patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation) is an international, multicentre, prospective study undertaken at 119 ICUs in 16 countries worldwide. All patients aged 18 years or older who were receiving mechanical ventilation in participating ICUs during a 1-week period between January, 2014, and January, 2015, were enrolled into the study. The Lung Injury Prediction Score (LIPS) was used to stratify risk of ARDS, with a score of 4 or higher defining those at risk of ARDS. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients at risk of ARDS. Secondary outcomes included ventilatory management (including tidal volume [VT] expressed as mL/kg predicted bodyweight [PBW], and positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] expressed as cm H2O), development of pulmonary complications, and clinical outcomes. The PRoVENT study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01868321. The study has been completed. Findings Of 3023 patients screened for the study, 935 individuals fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these critically ill patients, 282 were at risk of ARDS (30%, 95% CI 27–33), representing 0·14 cases per ICU bed over a 1-week period. VT was similar for patients at risk and not at risk of ARDS (median 7·6 mL/kg PBW [IQR 6·7–9·1] vs 7·9 mL/kg PBW [6·8–9·1]; p=0·346). PEEP was higher in patients at risk of ARDS compared with those not at risk (median 6·0 cm H2O [IQR 5·0–8·0] vs 5·0 cm H2O [5·0–7·0]; p&lt;0·0001). The prevalence of ARDS in patients at risk of ARDS was higher than in individuals not at risk of ARDS (19/260 [7%] vs 17/556 [3%]; p=0·004). Compared with individuals not at risk of ARDS, patients at risk of ARDS had higher in-hospital mortality (86/543 [16%] vs 74/232 [32%]; p&lt;0·0001), ICU mortality (62/533 [12%] vs 66/227 [29%]; p&lt;0·0001), and 90-day mortality (109/653 [17%] vs 88/282 [31%]; p&lt;0·0001). VT did not differ between patients who did and did not develop ARDS (p=0·471 for those at risk of ARDS; p=0·323 for those not at risk). Interpretation Around a third of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU were at risk of ARDS. Pulmonary complications occur frequently in patients at risk of ARDS and their clinical outcome is worse compared with those not at risk of ARDS. There is potential for improvement in the management of patients without ARDS. Further refinements are needed for prediction of ARDS

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications of COVID-19 in adults hospitalized in high-income countries compared with those in adults hospitalized in low- and middle-income countries in an international registry

Background: COVID-19 has been associated with a broad range of thromboembolic, ischemic, and hemorrhagic complications (coagulopathy complications). Most studies have focused on patients with severe disease from high-income countries (HICs). Objectives: The main aims were to compare the frequency of coagulopathy complications in developing countries (low- and middle-income countries [LMICs]) with those in HICs, delineate the frequency across a range of treatment levels, and determine associations with in-hospital mortality. Methods: Adult patients enrolled in an observational, multinational registry, the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections COVID-19 study, between January 1, 2020, and September 15, 2021, met inclusion criteria, including admission to a hospital for laboratory-confirmed, acute COVID-19 and data on complications and survival. The advanced-treatment cohort received care, such as admission to the intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, or inotropes or vasopressors; the basic-treatment cohort did not receive any of these interventions. Results: The study population included 495,682 patients from 52 countries, with 63% from LMICs and 85% in the basic treatment cohort. The frequency of coagulopathy complications was higher in HICs (0.76%-3.4%) than in LMICs (0.09%-1.22%). Complications were more frequent in the advanced-treatment cohort than in the basic-treatment cohort. Coagulopathy complications were associated with increased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.52-1.64). The increased mortality associated with these complications was higher in LMICs (58.5%) than in HICs (35.4%). After controlling for coagulopathy complications, treatment intensity, and multiple other factors, the mortality was higher among patients in LMICs than among patients in HICs (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.39-1.51). Conclusion: In a large, international registry of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, coagulopathy complications were more frequent in HICs than in LMICs (developing countries). Increased mortality associated with coagulopathy complications was of a greater magnitude among patients in LMICs. Additional research is needed regarding timely diagnosis of and intervention for coagulation derangements associated with COVID-19, particularly for limited-resource settings