52 research outputs found

    Beta-lactam-induced immediate hypersensitivity reactions: A genome-wide association study of a deeply phenotyped cohort

    Get PDF
    Background β-lactam antibiotics are associated with a variety of immune-mediated or hypersensitivity reactions, including immediate (Type I) reactions mediated by antigen-specific IgE. Objective To identify genetic predisposing factors for immediate reactions to β-lactam antibiotics. Methods Patients with a clinical history of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to either penicillins or cephalosporins, which were immunologically confirmed, were recruited from allergy clinics. A genome-wide association study (GWAS) was conducted on 662 patients (the discovery cohort) with a diagnosis of immediate hypersensitivity and the main finding was replicated in a cohort of 98 Spanish cases, recruited using the same diagnostic criteria as the discovery cohort. Results GWAS identified rs71542416 within the Class II HLA region as the top hit (P = 2x10-14); this was in linkage disequilibrium with HLA-DRB1*10:01 (OR = 2.93 P = 5.4x10-7) and HLA-DQA1*01:05 (OR=2.93, P=5.4x10-7). Haplotype analysis identified that HLA-DRB1*10:01 was a risk factor even without the HLA-DQA1*01:05 allele. The association with HLA-DRB1*10:01 was replicated in another cohort, with the meta-analysis of the discovery and replication cohorts showing that HLA-DRB1*10:01 increased the risk of immediate hypersensitivity at a genome-wide level (OR = 2.96 P=4.1x10-9). No association with HLA-DRB1*10:01 was identified in 268 patients with delayed hypersensitivity reactions to β-lactams. Conclusion HLA-DRB1*10:01 predisposed to immediate hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins. Further work to identify other predisposing HLA and non-HLA loci is required. Clinical implications This novel insight into the mechanisms of immediate reactions associated with penicillins may be of use in risk stratifying patients where penicillin cannot be excluded as an etiological agent

    Shared Genetic Risk Factors Across Carbamazepine-Induced Hypersensitivity Reactions

    Get PDF
    Carbamazepine (CBZ) causes life-threating T-cell-mediated hypersensitivity reactions, including serious cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) and drug-induced liver injury (CBZ-DILI). In order to evaluate shared or phenotype-specific genetic predisposing factors for CBZ hypersensitivity reactions, we performed a meta-analysis of two genomewide association studies (GWAS) on a total of 43 well-phenotyped Northern and Southern European CBZ-SCAR cases and 10,701 population controls and a GWAS on 12 CBZ-DILI cases and 8,438 ethnically matched population controls. HLA-A*31:01 was identified as the strongest genetic predisposing factor for both CBZ-SCAR (odds ratio (OR) = 8.0; 95% CI 4.10-15.80; P = 1.2 x 10(-9)) and CBZ-DILI (OR = 7.3; 95% CI 2.47-23.67; P = 0.0004) in European populations. The association with HLA-A*31:01 in patients with SCAR was mainly driven by hypersensitivity syndrome (OR = 12.9; P = 2.1 x 10(-9)) rather than by Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis cases, which showed an association with HLA-B*57:01. We also identified a novel risk locus mapping to ALK only for CBZ-SCAR cases, which needs replication in additional cohorts and functional evaluation.Peer reviewe

    Procalcitonin Is Not a Reliable Biomarker of Bacterial Coinfection in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Undergoing Microbiological Investigation at the Time of Hospital Admission

    Get PDF
    Abstract Admission procalcitonin measurements and microbiology results were available for 1040 hospitalized adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (from 48 902 included in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium World Health Organization Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK study). Although procalcitonin was higher in bacterial coinfection, this was neither clinically significant (median [IQR], 0.33 [0.11–1.70] ng/mL vs 0.24 [0.10–0.90] ng/mL) nor diagnostically useful (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.56 [95% confidence interval, .51–.60]).</jats:p

    Implementation of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 in the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK:prospective observational cohort study

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone was the first intervention proven to reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 being treated in hospital. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 in the UK after the RECOVERY trial publication on June 16, 2020, and to identify discrepancies in care. METHODS: We did an audit of clinical implementation of corticosteroids in a prospective, observational, cohort study in 237 UK acute care hospitals between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2021, restricted to patients aged 18 years or older with proven or high likelihood of COVID-19, who received supplementary oxygen. The primary outcome was administration of dexamethasone, prednisolone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN66726260. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2020, and April 14, 2021, 47 795 (75·2%) of 63 525 of patients on supplementary oxygen received corticosteroids, higher among patients requiring critical care than in those who received ward care (11 185 [86·6%] of 12 909 vs 36 415 [72·4%] of 50 278). Patients 50 years or older were significantly less likely to receive corticosteroids than those younger than 50 years (adjusted odds ratio 0·79 [95% CI 0·70–0·89], p=0·0001, for 70–79 years; 0·52 [0·46–0·58], p80 years), independent of patient demographics and illness severity. 84 (54·2%) of 155 pregnant women received corticosteroids. Rates of corticosteroid administration increased from 27·5% in the week before June 16, 2020, to 75–80% in January, 2021. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of corticosteroids into clinical practice in the UK for patients with COVID-19 has been successful, but not universal. Patients older than 70 years, independent of illness severity, chronic neurological disease, and dementia, were less likely to receive corticosteroids than those who were younger, as were pregnant women. This could reflect appropriate clinical decision making, but the possibility of inequitable access to life-saving care should be considered. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research and UK Medical Research Council

    The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy: the iBRA-2 study

    Get PDF
    Background: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is routinely offered to improve quality-of-life for women requiring mastectomy, but there are concerns that more complex surgery may delay adjuvant oncological treatments and compromise long-term outcomes. High-quality evidence is lacking. The iBRA-2 study aimed to investigate the impact of IBR on time to adjuvant therapy. Methods: Consecutive women undergoing mastectomy ± IBR for breast cancer July–December, 2016 were included. Patient demographics, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. Time from last definitive cancer surgery to first adjuvant treatment for patients undergoing mastectomy ± IBR were compared and risk factors associated with delays explored. Results: A total of 2540 patients were recruited from 76 centres; 1008 (39.7%) underwent IBR (implant-only [n = 675, 26.6%]; pedicled flaps [n = 105,4.1%] and free-flaps [n = 228, 8.9%]). Complications requiring re-admission or re-operation were significantly more common in patients undergoing IBR than those receiving mastectomy. Adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy was required by 1235 (48.6%) patients. No clinically significant differences were seen in time to adjuvant therapy between patient groups but major complications irrespective of surgery received were significantly associated with treatment delays. Conclusions: IBR does not result in clinically significant delays to adjuvant therapy, but post-operative complications are associated with treatment delays. Strategies to minimise complications, including careful patient selection, are required to improve outcomes for patients

    Lawson criterion for ignition exceeded in an inertial fusion experiment

    Get PDF
    For more than half a century, researchers around the world have been engaged in attempts to achieve fusion ignition as a proof of principle of various fusion concepts. Following the Lawson criterion, an ignited plasma is one where the fusion heating power is high enough to overcome all the physical processes that cool the fusion plasma, creating a positive thermodynamic feedback loop with rapidly increasing temperature. In inertially confined fusion, ignition is a state where the fusion plasma can begin "burn propagation" into surrounding cold fuel, enabling the possibility of high energy gain. While "scientific breakeven" (i.e., unity target gain) has not yet been achieved (here target gain is 0.72, 1.37 MJ of fusion for 1.92 MJ of laser energy), this Letter reports the first controlled fusion experiment, using laser indirect drive, on the National Ignition Facility to produce capsule gain (here 5.8) and reach ignition by nine different formulations of the Lawson criterion

    Lawson Criterion for Ignition Exceeded in an Inertial Fusion Experiment

    Get PDF

    Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and outcomes of COVID-19 in the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK cohort: a matched, prospective cohort study.

    Get PDF
    Background: Early in the pandemic it was suggested that pre-existing use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) could lead to increased disease severity in patients with COVID-19. NSAIDs are an important analgesic, particularly in those with rheumatological disease, and are widely available to the general public without prescription. Evidence from community studies, administrative data, and small studies of hospitalised patients suggest NSAIDs are not associated with poorer COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to characterise the safety of NSAIDs and identify whether pre-existing NSAID use was associated with increased severity of COVID-19 disease. Methods: This prospective, multicentre cohort study included patients of any age admitted to hospital with a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to COVID-19 between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were disease severity at presentation, admission to critical care, receipt of invasive ventilation, receipt of non-invasive ventilation, use of supplementary oxygen, and acute kidney injury. NSAID use was required to be within the 2 weeks before hospital admission. We used logistic regression to estimate the effects of NSAIDs and adjust for confounding variables. We used propensity score matching to further estimate effects of NSAIDS while accounting for covariate differences in populations. Results: Between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020, we enrolled 78 674 patients across 255 health-care facilities in England, Scotland, and Wales. 72 179 patients had death outcomes available for matching; 40 406 (56·2%) of 71 915 were men, 31 509 (43·8%) were women. In this cohort, 4211 (5·8%) patients were recorded as taking systemic NSAIDs before admission to hospital. Following propensity score matching, balanced groups of NSAIDs users and NSAIDs non-users were obtained (4205 patients in each group). At hospital admission, we observed no significant differences in severity between exposure groups. After adjusting for explanatory variables, NSAID use was not associated with worse in-hospital mortality (matched OR 0·95, 95% CI 0·84–1·07; p=0·35), critical care admission (1·01, 0·87–1·17; p=0·89), requirement for invasive ventilation (0·96, 0·80–1·17; p=0·69), requirement for non-invasive ventilation (1·12, 0·96–1·32; p=0·14), requirement for oxygen (1·00, 0·89–1·12; p=0·97), or occurrence of acute kidney injury (1·08, 0·92–1·26; p=0·33). Interpretation: NSAID use is not associated with higher mortality or increased severity of COVID-19. Policy makers should consider reviewing issued advice around NSAID prescribing and COVID-19 severity. Funding: National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council
    corecore