Viral pathogens and acute lung injury: investigations inspired by the SARS epidemic and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic.

Acute viral pneumonia is an important cause of acute lung injury (ALI), although not enough is known about the exact incidence of viral infection in ALI. Polymerase chain reaction-based assays, direct fluorescent antigen (DFA) assays, and viral cultures can detect viruses in samples from the human respiratory tract, but the presence of the virus does not prove it to be a pathogen, nor does it give information regarding the interaction of viruses with the host immune response and bacterial flora of the respiratory tract. The severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic provided a better understanding of how viral pathogens mediate lung injury. Although the viruses initially infect the respiratory epithelium, the relative role of epithelial damage and endothelial dysfunction has not been well defined. The inflammatory host immune response to H1N1 infection is a major contributor to lung injury. The SARS coronavirus causes lung injury and inflammation in part through actions on the nonclassical renin angiotensin pathway. The lessons learned from the pandemic outbreaks of SARS coronavirus and H1N1 capture key principles of virally mediated ALI. There are pathogen-specific pathways underlying virally mediated ALI that converge onto a common end pathway resulting in diffuse alveolar damage. In terms of therapy, lung protective ventilation is the cornerstone of supportive care. There is little evidence that corticosteroids are beneficial, and they might be harmful. Future therapeutic strategies may be targeted to specific pathogens, the pathogenetic pathways in the host immune response, or enhancing repair and regeneration of tissue damage

Alternative causal inference methods in population health research: Evaluating tradeoffs and triangulating evidence.

Population health researchers from different fields often address similar substantive questions but rely on different study designs, reflecting their home disciplines. This is especially true in studies involving causal inference, for which semantic and substantive differences inhibit interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration. In this paper, we group nonrandomized study designs into two categories: those that use confounder-control (such as regression adjustment or propensity score matching) and those that rely on an instrument (such as instrumental variables, regression discontinuity, or differences-in-differences approaches). Using the Shadish, Cook, and Campbell framework for evaluating threats to validity, we contrast the assumptions, strengths, and limitations of these two approaches and illustrate differences with examples from the literature on education and health. Across disciplines, all methods to test a hypothesized causal relationship involve unverifiable assumptions, and rarely is there clear justification for exclusive reliance on one method. Each method entails trade-offs between statistical power, internal validity, measurement quality, and generalizability. The choice between confounder-control and instrument-based methods should be guided by these tradeoffs and consideration of the most important limitations of previous work in the area. Our goals are to foster common understanding of the methods available for causal inference in population health research and the tradeoffs between them; to encourage researchers to objectively evaluate what can be learned from methods outside one's home discipline; and to facilitate the selection of methods that best answer the investigator's scientific questions

Assessing the quantity of pulmonary edema in critically ill children

Measuring extravascular lung water may be useful for predicting outcome in adults with acute lung injury. The present commentary briefly reviews the potential role and limitations of extravascular lung water measurement in critically ill children

The value of kinetic glomerular filtration rate estimation on medication dosing in acute kidney injury.

BackgroundIn acute kidney injury (AKI), medication dosing based on Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance (CrCl) or Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) are not valid when serum creatinine (SCr) is not in steady state. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of a kinetic estimating equation that incorporates fluctuations in SCrs on drug dosing in critically ill patients.MethodsWe used data from participants enrolled in the NIH Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network Fluid and Catheters Treatment Trial to simulate drug dosing category changes with the application of the kinetic estimating equation developed by Chen. We evaluated whether kinetic estimation of renal function would change medication dosing categories (≥60, 30-59, 15-29, and <15mL/min) compared with the use of CrCl or CKD-EPI eGFR.ResultsThe use of kinetic CrCl and CKD-EPI eGFR resulted in a large enough change in estimated renal function to require medication dosing recategorization in 19.3% [95 CI 16.8%-21.9%] and 23.4% [95% CI 20.7%-26.1%] of participants, respectively. As expected, recategorization occurred more frequently in those with AKI. When we examined individual days for those with AKI, dosing discordance was observed in 8.5% of total days using the CG CrCl and 10.2% of total days using the CKD-EPI equation compared with the kinetic counterparts.ConclusionIn a critically ill population, use of kinetic estimates of renal function impacted medication dosing in a substantial proportion of AKI participants. Use of kinetic estimates in clinical practice should lower the incidence of medication toxicity as well as avoid subtherapeutic dosing during renal recovery

Opportunities and challenges in using instrumental variables to study causal effects in nonrandomized stress and trauma research.

OBJECTIVE: Researchers are often interested in assessing the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome when randomization is not ethical or feasible. Estimating causal effects by controlling for confounders can be unconvincing because important potential confounders remain unmeasured. Study designs leveraging instrumental variables (IVs) offer alternatives to confounder-control methods but are rarely used in stress and trauma research. METHOD: We review the conceptual foundations and implementation of IV methods. We discuss strengths and limitations of IV approaches, contrasting with confounder-control methods, and illustrate the relevance of IVs for stress and trauma research. RESULTS: IV approaches leverage an external or exogenous source of variation in the exposure. Instruments are variables that meet three conditions: relevance (variation in the IV is associated with variation in the chance of exposure), exclusion (the IV only affects the outcome through the exposure), and exchangeability (no unmeasured confounding of the IV-outcome relationship). Interpreting estimates from IV analyses requires an additional assumption, such as monotonicity (the instrument does not change the chance of exposure in different directions for any two individuals). Valid IVs circumvent the need to correctly identify, measure, and control for all confounders of the exposure-outcome relationship. The primary challenge is identifying a valid instrument. CONCLUSIONS: IV approaches have strengths and weaknesses compared with confounder-control approaches. IVs offers a promising complementary study design to improve evidence about the causal effects of exposures on outcomes relevant to stress and trauma. Collaboration with scientists who are experienced with identifying and analyzing IVs will support this work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Phase 1 study of sirolimus in combination with oral cyclophosphamide and topotecan in children and young adults with relapsed and refractory solid tumors.

PurposeTo determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), toxicities, and pharmacodynamics effects of sirolimus combined with oral metronomic topotecan and cyclophosphamide in a pediatric population.Materials and methodsPatients who were 1 to 30 years of age with relapsed/refractory solid tumors (including CNS) were eligible. Patients received daily oral sirolimus and cyclophosphamide (25-50 mg/m2/dose) on days 1-21 and oral topotecan (0.8 mg/m2/dose) on days 1-14 in 28-day cycles. Sirolimus steady-state plasma trough concentrations of 3-7.9 ng/mL and 8-12.0 ng/mL were evaluated, with dose escalation based on a 3+3 phase 1 design. Biomarkers of angiogenesis were also evaluated.ResultsTwenty-one patients were treated (median age 18 years; range 9-30). Dose-limiting toxicities included myelosuppression, ALT elevation, stomatitis, and hypertriglyceridemia. The MTD was sirolimus with trough goal of 8-12.0 ng/mL; cyclophosphamide 25 mg/m2/dose; and topotecan 0.8 mg/m2/dose. No objective responses were observed. Four patients had prolonged stable disease > 4 cycles (range 4-12). Correlative biomarker analyses demonstrated reductions in thrombospondin-1 (p=0.043) and soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 plasma concentrations at 21 days compared to baseline.ConclusionsThe combination of oral sirolimus, topotecan, and cyclophosphamide was well tolerated and biomarker studies demonstrated modulation of angiogenic pathways with this regimen

Powering population health research: Considerations for plausible and actionable effect sizes

Evidence for Action (E4A), a signature program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, funds investigator-initiated research on the impacts of social programs and policies on population health and health inequities. Across thousands of letters of intent and full proposals E4A has received since 2015, one of the most common methodological challenges faced by applicants is selecting realistic effect sizes to inform power and sample size calculations. E4A prioritizes health studies that are both (1) adequately powered to detect effect sizes that may reasonably be expected for the given intervention and (2) likely to achieve intervention effects sizes that, if demonstrated, correspond to actionable evidence for population health stakeholders. However, little guidance exists to inform the selection of effect sizes for population health research proposals. We draw on examples of five rigorously evaluated population health interventions. These examples illustrate considerations for selecting realistic and actionable effect sizes as inputs to power and sample size calculations for research proposals to study population health interventions. We show that plausible effects sizes for population health inteventions may be smaller than commonly cited guidelines suggest. Effect sizes achieved with population health interventions depend on the characteristics of the intervention, the target population, and the outcomes studied. Population health impact depends on the proportion of the population receiving the intervention. When adequately powered, even studies of interventions with small effect sizes can offer valuable evidence to inform population health if such interventions can be implemented broadly. Demonstrating the effectiveness of such interventions, however, requires large sample sizes.Comment: 24 pages, 1 figur

Local lung hypoxia determines epithelial fate decisions during alveolar regeneration.

After influenza infection, lineage-negative epithelial progenitors (LNEPs) exhibit a binary response to reconstitute epithelial barriers: activating a Notch-dependent ΔNp63/cytokeratin 5 (Krt5) remodelling program or differentiating into alveolar type II cells (AEC2s). Here we show that local lung hypoxia, through hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF1α), drives Notch signalling and Krt5pos basal-like cell expansion. Single-cell transcriptional profiling of human AEC2s from fibrotic lungs revealed a hypoxic subpopulation with activated Notch, suppressed surfactant protein C (SPC), and transdifferentiation toward a Krt5pos basal-like state. Activated murine Krt5pos LNEPs and diseased human AEC2s upregulate strikingly similar core pathways underlying migration and squamous metaplasia. While robust, HIF1α-driven metaplasia is ultimately inferior to AEC2 reconstitution in restoring normal lung function. HIF1α deletion or enhanced Wnt/β-catenin activity in Sox2pos LNEPs blocks Notch and Krt5 activation, instead promoting rapid AEC2 differentiation and migration and improving the quality of alveolar repair

Building the evidence on Making Health a Shared Value: Insights and considerations for research.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF)'s Culture of Health Action Framework guides a movement to improve health and advance health equity across the nation. Action Area One of the Framework, Making Health a Shared Value, highlights the role of individual and community factors in achieving a societal commitment to health and health equity, centered around three drivers: Mindset and Expectations, Sense of Community, and Civic Engagement. To stimulate research about how Action Area One and its drivers may impact health, Evidence for Action (E4A), a signature research funding program of RWJF, developed and released a national Call for Proposals (CFP). The process of formulating the CFP and reviewing proposals surfaced important challenges for research on creating and sustaining shared values to foster and maintain a Culture of Health. In this essay, we describe these considerations and provide examples from funded projects regarding how challenges can be addressed