Agstone used in Illinois in 1947

Ope

Agstone used in Illinois in 1946

Ope

Differential Regulation of Cutaneous Oncoprotein HPVE6 by wtp53, Mutant p53R248W and ΔNp63α is HPV Type Dependent

UV exposure and p53 mutations are major factors in non-melanoma skin cancer, whereas a role for HPV infections has not been defined. Previous data demonstrated the wtp53-mediated degradation of cutaneous HPV20E6 by caspase-3. ΔNp63α and hot-spot mutant p53R248W conveyed a protective effect on HPV20E6 under these conditions. We demonstrate a differential regulation by wtp53 of the E6 genes of cutaneous types HPV4, HPV5, HPV7, HPV27, HPV38, HPV48, HPV60 and HPV77. Caspase- or proteasome-mediated down-regulation was HPV type dependent. Mutant p53R248W up-regulated expression of all these E6 proteins as did ΔNp63α except for HPV38E6 which was down-regulated by the latter. None of these cellular proteins affected HPV41E6 expression. Ectopic expression of both mutp53R248W and ΔNp63α in the normal NIKS keratinocyte cell line harbouring endogenous p53 and p63however led to a down-regulation of HPV20E6. We demonstrate that HPV20E6 expression in these cells is modulated by additional, yet unidentified, cellular protein(s), which are not necessarily involved in apoptosis or autophagy. We further demonstrate proliferation of HPV20E6-expressing keratinocytes. Levels of proteins involved in cell cycle control, cyclin-D1, cdk6 and p16INK4a, phosphorylated pRB, as well as c-Jun and p-c-Jun, were all increased in these cells. HPV20E6 did not compete for the interaction between p16INK4a with cyclin-D1 or cdk6. Phosphorylation of pRB in the HPV20E6 expressing cells seems to be sufficient to override the cytokenetic block induced by the p16INK4a/pRB pathway. The present study demonstrates the diverse influence of p53 family members on individual cutaneous HPVE6 proteins. HPV20E6 expression also resulted in varying protein levels of factors involved in proliferation and differentiation

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

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

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

TR in Norway and Denmark, 1910 [1] /

While returning from Africa in 1910, Theodore Roosevelt visited many European countries, including Denmark, May 2-3, and Norway, May 4-6. Roosevelt, King Haakon, Edith Roosevelt, Queen Maud, Ethel Roosevelt, Kermit Roosevelt, and others enter carriages outside the railroad station in Oslo, Norway. Carriages arrive at the wharf in Helsingør, Denmark. Roosevelt and Kermit arrive by carriage outside the National Theater in Oslo where he is to deliver his acceptance speech for the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize. They are greeted by King Haakon and others. Ethel, probably Edith, and Queen Maud arrive at the theater. Crowds gather outside King Frederick University, Oslo.Roosevelt, Crown Prince Christian, later King Christian X, Kermit, Edith, and Ethel enter carriages in Copenhagen, Denmark. The carriage with Roosevelt and Prince Christian arrives at Amalienborg Palace, Copenhagen. Roosevelt, a woman who may be Katharine M. Egan, and Dr. Maurice Francis Egan, American minister to Denmark (barely visible on far left), arrive by auto and are greeted by unidentified men. There is a pan of the crowds at Frederiksborg Castle in Denmark. Roosevelt and entourage arrive, as Danish soldiers march by, visit, and bid hosts goodbye at Kronborg Castle, Denmark. Roosevelt and the Egans board the steamer Queen Maud. The ship sails past Kronborg Castle, a Danish naval ship, and returns to Copenhagen. Roosevelt leaves the ship and enters a carriage.Copyright: no reg.Appearing: President Theodore Roosevelt, King Haakon, Edith Roosevelt, Queen Maud, Ethel Roosevelt, Kermit Roosevelt, Crown Prince Christian, Katharine M. Egan, Dr. Maurice F. Egan.Film sequence does not follow order of actual events.Film is slightly out of frame; flash titles written on leader between scenes. DLCDuration: 4:04 (part 1) and 3:22 (part 2) at 16 fps.MAVIS 1808208; TR in Norway and Denmark, 1919 [1]. DLCDonor's inventory number: RMA 321-06B. DLCSources used: Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division presidential and portrait files; Aftenposten, Oslo, 5/4/1910, p. 1-2 and 5/6/1910, p. 1; Politiken, Copenhagen, 5/3/1910, p. 1, 3 and 5/4/1910, p. 3.viewing print and dupe negs; Received: May 1968 from USDA lab and Feb. 1976 from LC film lab; preservation; Theodore Roosevelt Association Collection.Received: 1967; transferred to LC from NPS, NPS acquired from RMA, RMA purchased from Nordiska; flash titles written on leader between scenes; film is slightly out of frame; transferred to safety from LC nitrate at USDA lab: May 1968 and LC lab: March 1976