Money, Manipulation, & Madoff: What are Ponzi Schemes and How to Avoid Becoming a Fraud Victim

By educating more people on the red flags of Ponzi schemes, it will better their chances of not falling victim to a fraud themselves. It is also imperative for auditors and investigators to be properly educated on the red flags associated with frauds, such as Ponzi schemes, so future frauds can be stopped

National Institutes of Health–Sponsored Clinical Islet Transplantation Consortium Phase 3 Trial: Manufacture of a Complex Cellular Product at Eight Processing Facilities

Eight manufacturing facilities participating in the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Clinical Islet Transplantation (CIT) Consortium jointly developed and implemented a harmonized process for the manufacture of allogeneic purified human pancreatic islet (PHPI) product evaluated in a phase 3 trial in subjects with type 1 diabetes. Manufacturing was controlled by a common master production batch record, standard operating procedures that included acceptance criteria for deceased donor organ pancreata and critical raw materials, PHPI product specifications, certificate of analysis, and test methods. The process was compliant with Current Good Manufacturing Practices and Current Good Tissue Practices. This report describes the manufacturing process for 75 PHPI clinical lots and summarizes the results, including lot release. The results demonstrate the feasibility of implementing a harmonized process at multiple facilities for the manufacture of a complex cellular product. The quality systems and regulatory and operational strategies developed by the CIT Consortium yielded product lots that met the prespecified characteristics of safety, purity, potency, and identity and were successfully transplanted into 48 subjects. No adverse events attributable to the product and no cases of primary nonfunction were observed

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

Differential effects of donor-specific alloantibody

Alloantigen exposure typically provokes an adaptive immune response that can foster rejection of transplanted organs, and these responses present the most formidable biological barrier to kidney transplantation. Although most cellular alloimmune responses can be therapeutically controlled with T-cell-specific immunosuppressants, humoral alloimmune responses remain relatively untamed. Importantly, humoral immunity, typically manifesting as allospecific antibody production, is increasingly recognized for its variable appearance after kidney transplantation. Indeed, the appearance of alloantibody can herald the onset of rapid and destructive antibody-mediated rejection or have no demonstrable acute effects. The factors determining the end result of alloantibody formation remain poorly understood. This review will discuss the breadth of alloantibody responses seen in clinical kidney transplantation and provide an overview of potential factors explaining the phenotypic variability associated with humoral alloimmunity. We propose several avenues ripe for future investigation including the influence of innate immune components and the potential influence of heterologous immune responses in determining the ultimate clinical import of an alloantibody response

Cannabis Dopaminergic Effects Induce Hallucinations in a Patient with Parkinson’s Disease

Cannabis products that contain the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cannabinoid are emerging as promising therapeutic agents for the treatment of medical conditions such as chronic pain. THC elicits psychoactive effects through modulation of dopaminergic neurons, thereby altering levels of dopamine in the brain. This case report highlights the complexity associated with medicinal cannabis and the health risks associated with its use. A 57-year-old male with Parkinson’s disease was experiencing worsening tremors and vivid hallucinations despite therapy optimization attempts. It was discovered that the patient took cannabis for chronic back pain, and a pharmacogenomics (PGx) test indicated the presence of variants for the COMT and HTR2A genes. These variants could increase dopamine levels and predispose patients to visual hallucinations. Once the cannabis was discontinued, the patient’s hallucinations began to slowly dissipate. Cannabis use continues to expand as it gains more acceptance legally and medicinally, but cannabis can affect the response to drugs. This patient case suggests that cannabis use in combination with dopamine-promoting drugs, especially in a patient with genetic variants, can increase the risk for vivid hallucinations. These conditions support the importance of considering herb–drug interactions and PGx data when performing a medication safety review

Case Report: Performing a Medication Safety Review Assisted by Pharmacogenomics to Explain a Prescribing Cascade Resulting in a Patient Fall

Pharmacotherapy for major depressive disorder (MDD) typically consists of trial-and-error and clinician preference approaches, where patients often fail one or more antidepressants before finding an optimal regimen. Pharmacogenomics (PGx) can assist in prescribing appropriate antidepressants, thereby reducing the time to MDD remission and occurrence of adverse drug events. Since many antidepressants are metabolized by and/or inhibit cytochrome P450 enzymes (e.g., CYP2C19 or CYP2D6), drug-induced phenoconversion is common in patients on antidepressant combinations. This condition influences the interpretation of a patient’s PGx results, overall risk of ineffective/adverse medication response due to multi-drug interactions, and the recommendations. This complex case describes a patient with MDD, generalized anxiety disorder, and chronic pain who experienced a fall due to excessive sedation following a prescribing cascade of fluoxetine, bupropion, and doxepin. These antidepressants delivered a significant additive sedative effect and interacted with the patient’s hydrocodone, potentially contributing to uncontrolled pain, upward dose titration of hydrocodone, and a higher overall sedative burden. The PGx results and drug-induced phenoconversion described in this case report explain the patient’s excessive sedation and possibly ineffective/toxic antidepressant and opioid treatment. This case report also illustrates how a more timely multi-drug interaction assessment (preferably in conjunction with preemptive PGx testing) may have informed a different prescribing pattern, reduced/avoided a prescribing cascade, and potentially prevented a drug-related fall