A comparison of nicotine dose estimates in smokers between filter analysis, salivary cotinine, and urinary excretion of nicotine metabolites

RATIONALE: Nicotine uptake during smoking was estimated by either analyzing the metabolites of nicotine in various body fluids or by analyzing filters from smoked cigarettes. However, no comparison of the filter analysis method with body fluid analysis methods has been published. OBJECTIVES: Correlate nicotine uptake estimates between filter analysis, salivary cotinine, and urinary excretion of selected nicotine metabolites to determine the suitability of these methods in estimating nicotine absorption in smokers of filtered cigarettes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 5-day clinical study was conducted with 74 smokers who smoked 1–19 mg Federal Trade Commission tar cigarettes, using their own brands ad libitum. Filters were analyzed to estimate the daily mouth exposure of nicotine. Twenty-four-hour urine samples were collected and analyzed for nicotine, cotinine, and 3′-hydroxycotinine plus their glucuronide conjugates. Saliva samples were collected daily for cotinine analysis. RESULTS: Each method correlated significantly (p < 0.01) with the other two. The best correlation was between the mouth exposure of nicotine, as estimated by filter analysis, and urinary nicotine plus metabolites. Multiple regression analysis implies that saliva cotinine and urinary output are dependent on nicotine mouth exposure for multiple days. Creatinine normalization of the urinary metabolites degrades the correlation with mouth exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The filter analysis method was shown to correlate with more traditional methods of estimating nicotine uptake. However, because filter analysis is less complicated and intrusive, subjects can collect samples easily and unsupervised. This should enable improvements in study compliance and future study designs

Host genetic signatures of susceptibility to fungal disease

Our relative inability to predict the development of fungal disease and its clinical outcome raises fundamental questions about its actual pathogenesis. Several clinical risk factors are described to predispose to fungal disease, particularly in immunocompromised and severely ill patients. However, these alone do not entirely explain why, under comparable clinical conditions, only some patients develop infection. Recent clinical and epidemiological studies have reported an expanding number of monogenic defects and common polymorphisms associated with fungal disease. By directly implicating genetic variation in the functional regulation of immune mediators and interacting pathways, these studies have provided critical insights into the human immunobiology of fungal disease. Most of the common genetic defects reported were described or suggested to impair fungal recognition by the innate immune system. Here, we review common genetic variation in pattern recognition receptors and its impact on the immune response against the two major fungal pathogens Candida albicans and Aspergillus fumigatus. In addition, we discuss potential strategies and opportunities for the clinical translation of genetic information in the field of medical mycology. These approaches are expected to transfigure current clinical practice by unleashing an unprecedented ability to personalize prophylaxis, therapy and monitoring for fungal disease.This work was supported by the Northern Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the Portugal 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) (NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000013), the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) (IF/00735/2014 to AC, and SFRH/BPD/96176/2013 to CC), the Institut Mérieux (Mérieux Research Grant 2017 to CC), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID Research Grant 2017 to AC)

Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls

Background The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01–1.03), male (1.54, 1.16–2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06–3.13 and 4.19, 2.14–8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09–2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00–1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00–1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders

Clinical characteristics with inflammation profiling of long COVID and association with 1-year recovery following hospitalisation in the UK: a prospective observational study

Background No effective pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions exist for patients with long COVID. We aimed to describe recovery 1 year after hospital discharge for COVID-19, identify factors associated with patient-perceived recovery, and identify potential therapeutic targets by describing the underlying inflammatory profiles of the previously described recovery clusters at 5 months after hospital discharge. Methods The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study recruiting adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital with COVID-19 across the UK. Recovery was assessed using patient-reported outcome measures, physical performance, and organ function at 5 months and 1 year after hospital discharge, and stratified by both patient-perceived recovery and recovery cluster. Hierarchical logistic regression modelling was performed for patient-perceived recovery at 1 year. Cluster analysis was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach using clinical outcomes at 5 months. Inflammatory protein profiling was analysed from plasma at the 5-month visit. This study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN10980107, and recruitment is ongoing. Findings 2320 participants discharged from hospital between March 7, 2020, and April 18, 2021, were assessed at 5 months after discharge and 807 (32·7%) participants completed both the 5-month and 1-year visits. 279 (35·6%) of these 807 patients were women and 505 (64·4%) were men, with a mean age of 58·7 (SD 12·5) years, and 224 (27·8%) had received invasive mechanical ventilation (WHO class 7–9). The proportion of patients reporting full recovery was unchanged between 5 months (501 [25·5%] of 1965) and 1 year (232 [28·9%] of 804). Factors associated with being less likely to report full recovery at 1 year were female sex (odds ratio 0·68 [95% CI 0·46–0·99]), obesity (0·50 [0·34–0·74]) and invasive mechanical ventilation (0·42 [0·23–0·76]). Cluster analysis (n=1636) corroborated the previously reported four clusters: very severe, severe, moderate with cognitive impairment, and mild, relating to the severity of physical health, mental health, and cognitive impairment at 5 months. We found increased inflammatory mediators of tissue damage and repair in both the very severe and the moderate with cognitive impairment clusters compared with the mild cluster, including IL-6 concentration, which was increased in both comparisons (n=626 participants). We found a substantial deficit in median EQ-5D-5L utility index from before COVID-19 (retrospective assessment; 0·88 [IQR 0·74–1·00]), at 5 months (0·74 [0·64–0·88]) to 1 year (0·75 [0·62–0·88]), with minimal improvements across all outcome measures at 1 year after discharge in the whole cohort and within each of the four clusters. Interpretation The sequelae of a hospital admission with COVID-19 were substantial 1 year after discharge across a range of health domains, with the minority in our cohort feeling fully recovered. Patient-perceived health-related quality of life was reduced at 1 year compared with before hospital admission. Systematic inflammation and obesity are potential treatable traits that warrant further investigation in clinical trials. Funding UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research