Cytokine Profiles of Severe Influenza Virus-Related Complications in Children

RationaleEffective immunomodulatory therapies for children with life-threatening “cytokine storm” triggered by acute influenza infection are lacking. Understanding the immune profiles of children progressing to severe lung injury and/or septic shock could provide insight into pathogenesis.ObjectivesTo compare the endotracheal and serum cytokine profiles of children with influenza-related critical illness and to identify their associations with severe influenza-associated complications.MethodsChildren with influenza-related critical illness were enrolled across 32 hospitals in development (N = 171) and validation (N = 73) cohorts (December 2008 through May 2016). Concentrations of 42 cytokines were measured in serum and endotracheal samples and clustered into modules of covarying cytokines. Relative concentrations of cytokines and cytokine modules were tested for associations with acute lung injury (ALI), shock requiring vasopressors, and death/ECMO.Measurements and main resultsModules of covarying cytokines were more significantly associated with disease severity than individual cytokines. In the development cohort, increased levels of a serum module containing IL6, IL8, IL10, IP10, GCSF, MCP1, and MIP1α [shock odds ratio (OR) = 3.37, family-wise error rate (FWER) p < 10−4], and decreased levels of a module containing EGF, FGF2, SCD40L, and PAI-1 (shock OR = 0.43, FWER p = 0.002), were both associated with ALI, shock, and death-ECMO independent of age and bacterial coinfection. Both of these associations were confirmed in the validation cohort. Endotracheal and serum cytokine associations differed markedly and were differentially associated with clinical outcomes.ConclusionWe identified strong positive and negative associations of cytokine modules with the most severe influenza-related complications in children, providing new insights into the pathogenesis of influenza-related critical illness in children. Effective therapies may need to target mediators of both inflammation and repair

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