Concentración sanguínea de aluminio en pacientes adultos: efecto de la nutrición parenteral tricameral frente a la nutrición parenteral elaborada en el hospital

Nutrició parenteral; Alumini; ToxicitatParenteral nutrition; Aluminum; ToxicityNutrición parenteral; Aluminio; ToxicidadBackground: the administration of aluminum-contaminated parenteral nutrition (PN) leads to an accumulation of aluminum. The aim of this study was to assess blood aluminum concentrations (BACs) of inpatients receiving multichamber-bag (MCB) PN compared to those receiving compounded PN. Methods: available BACs were retrospectively gathered from patient charts of adult inpatients receiving PN from 2015 to 2020, and compared depending on the type of PN administered. Long-term PN patients, defined as ≥ 20 days of PN, receiving at least > 10 days of compounded PN, were compared to long-term patients receiving only MCB. Results: a total of 160 BACs were available from 110 patients. No differences were found according to type of PN (mean BAC: 3.11 ± 2.75 for MCB versus 3.58 ± 2.08 µg/L for compounded PN). Baseline total bilirubin, surgery and days with PN were related to higher BACs (coefficient: 0.30 [95 % CI, 0.18-0.42], 1.29 [95 % CI, 0.52-2.07], and 0.06 [95 % CI: 0.01-0.11], respectively). Regarding long-term PN, patients receiving only MCB (n = 21) showed lower BACs compared to the compounded PN (n = 17) [2.99 ± 1.55 versus 4.35 ± 2.17 µg/L, respectively; p < 0.05]. Conclusions: although there were no differences in BAC according to type of PN administered, in long-term PN, MCB PN was associated with lower BACs as compared to compounded PN.Antecedentes: la administración de nutrición parenteral (NP) contaminada con aluminio conduce a su acumulación. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar las concentraciones de aluminio en sangre (CAS) en pacientes hospitalizados que recibieron NP elaboradas en el hospital o bolsas tricamerales. Métodos: se recogieron retrospectivamente las CAS disponibles de los pacientes hospitalizados con NP durante el período entre 2015 y 2020, comparándose los valores en función del tipo de NP administrada. Se comparan igualmente los valores de pacientes de larga duración, definida como ≥ 20 días de NP, que recibieron al menos > 10 días de NP elaborada frente aquellos de larga duración que recibieron solo NP tricameral. Resultados: se incluyeron un total de 160 CAS de 110 pacientes. No se encontraron diferencias con respecto al tipo de NP (CAS media: 3,11 ± 2,75 para la tricameral frente a 3,58 ± 2,08 µg/L para la elaborada). La bilirrubina total basal, la cirugía y los días con NP se relacionaron con un mayor valor de CAS (coeficiente: 0,30 [IC 95 %: 0,18-0,42], 1,29 [IC 95 %: 0,52-2,07] y 0,06 [IC 95 %: 0,01-0,11], respectivamente). En la NP a largo plazo, los pacientes que recibieron solo NP tricameral (n = 21) mostraron una CAS menor en comparación con el grupo que recibió al menos 10 NP elaboradas (n = 17) [2,99 ± 1,55 versus 4,35 ± 2,17 µg/L, respectivamente; p < 0,05]. Conclusiones: aunque no hubo diferencias de CAS con respecto al tipo de NP administrada, en la NP a largo plazo, la administración de NP tricameral se asoció con CAS menores en comparación con la NP elaborada

Characterization and real-live results of nebulized voriconazole: A single-center observational study

Voriconazol; Nebulizador; Enfermedad pulmonar fúngicaVoriconazole; Nebulizer; Fungal lung diseaseVoriconazol; Nebulitzador; Malaltia pulmonar fúngicaObjetivo la administración de voriconazol nebulizado implica ventajas, incluyendo la optimización de la penetración pulmonar y la reducción de los efectos adversos e interacciones; sin embargo, la evidencia sobre su utilización es escasa y no existen presentaciones comerciales específicas para nebulización. Nuestro objetivo es caracterizar las soluciones de voriconazol elaboradas para nebulización y describir su uso en nuestro centro. Método estudio observacional retrospectivo incluyendo pacientes que reciben voriconazol nebulizado para el tratamiento de enfermedades pulmonares (infecciones fúngicas o colonizaciones). La solución de voriconazol se preparó a partir de los viales comerciales para la administración intravenosa. Resultados el pH y la osmolaridad de las soluciones de voriconazol fueron adecuados para su nebulización. Se incluyeron 10 pacientes, 9 adultos y un niño. La dosis fue de 40 mg en los adultos y 10 mg en el paciente pediátrico, diluido a 10 mg/ml, administrados cada 12-24 horas. La duración mediana del tratamiento fue de 139 (rango: 26-911) días. No se reportaron efectos adversos y no se detectó voriconazol en plasma cuando se administró únicamente vía nebulizada. Conclusiones la nebulización de voriconazol es bien tolerada y no se absorbe hacia la circulación sistémica. Son necesarios más estudios de investigación para evaluar su eficacia.Objective Pulmonary administration of voriconazole involves advantages, including optimization of lung penetration and reduction of adverse effects and interactions. However, there is scarce evidence about its use and there are no commercial presentations for nebulization. We aim to characterize a compounded voriconazole solution for nebulization and describe its use in our center. Method This is a retrospective observational study including patients who received nebulized voriconazole to treat fungal lung diseases (infection or colonization). Voriconazole solution was prepared from commercial vials for intravenous administration. Results The pH and osmolarity of voriconazole solutions were adequate for nebulization. Ten patients were included, nine adults and a child. The dosage was 40 mg in adults and 10 mg in the pediatric patient, diluted to a final concentration of 10 mg/ml, administered every 12-24 hours. The median duration of treatment was 139 (range: 26-911) days. There were no reported adverse effects and the drug was not detected in plasma when nebulized only. Conclusion Voriconazole nebulization is well tolerated and it is not absorbed into the systemic circulation; further research is needed to assess its efficacy

Higher COVID-19 pneumonia risk associated with anti-IFN-α than with anti-IFN-ω auto-Abs in children

COVID-19; Immunodeficiency; Infectious diseaseCOVID-19; Inmunodeficiencia; Enfermedad infecciosaCOVID-19; Immunodeficiència; Malaltia infecciosaWe found that 19 (10.4%) of 183 unvaccinated children hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia had autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing type I IFNs (IFN-α2 in 10 patients: IFN-α2 only in three, IFN-α2 plus IFN-ω in five, and IFN-α2, IFN-ω plus IFN-β in two; IFN-ω only in nine patients). Seven children (3.8%) had Abs neutralizing at least 10 ng/ml of one IFN, whereas the other 12 (6.6%) had Abs neutralizing only 100 pg/ml. The auto-Abs neutralized both unglycosylated and glycosylated IFNs. We also detected auto-Abs neutralizing 100 pg/ml IFN-α2 in 4 of 2,267 uninfected children (0.2%) and auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-ω in 45 children (2%). The odds ratios (ORs) for life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia were, therefore, higher for auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-α2 only (OR [95% CI] = 67.6 [5.7–9,196.6]) than for auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-ω only (OR [95% CI] = 2.6 [1.2–5.3]). ORs were also higher for auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations (OR [95% CI] = 12.9 [4.6–35.9]) than for those neutralizing low concentrations (OR [95% CI] = 5.5 [3.1–9.6]) of IFN-ω and/or IFN-α2.The Laboratory of Human Genetics of Infectious Diseases is supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Rockefeller University, the St. Giles Foundation, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01AI088364, R01AI163029, and R21AI160576), the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Award program (UL1TR001866), the Fisher Center for Alzheimer’s Research Foundation, the Meyer Foundation, the JPB Foundation, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research, the program “Investissement d’Avenir” launched by the French Government and implemented by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) (ANR-10-IAHU-01), the Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory of Excellence (ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID), the French Foundation for Medical Research (FRM) (EQU201903007798), the ANRS-COV05, ANR GENVIR (ANR-20-CE93-003), ANR AI2D (ANR-22-CE15-0046), and ANR AAILC (ANR-21-LIBA-0002) projects, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement no. 824110 (EASI-genomics), the HORIZON-HLTH-2021-DISEASE-04 program under grant agreement 01057100 (UNDINE), the ANR-RHU COVIFERON Program (ANR-21-RHUS-08), the Square Foundation, Grandir - Fonds de solidarité pour l’enfance, the Fondation du Souffle, the SCOR Corporate Foundation for Science, The French Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and Innovation (MESRI-COVID-19), Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), REACTing-INSERM, the University of Paris Cité and Imagine Institute, Battersea & Bowery Advisory Group, and William E. Ford, General Atlantic’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Gabriel Caillaux, General Atlantic’s Co-President, Managing Director and Head of Business in EMEA, and the General Atlantic Foundation. I. Meyts is a senior clinical researcher at FWO Vlaanderen; I. Meyts is funded by the European Research Council under HORIZON-HLTL-2021-ID: 101057100 "Undine," KU Leuven C16/18/007, and FWO grant G0B5120N (DADA2). L.D. Notarangelo and H.C. Su (members of the COVID Human Genetic Effort) were supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH. P. Bastard was supported by the French Foundation for Medical Research (FRM, EA20170638020). P. Bastard and T. Le Voyer were supported by the MD-PhD program of the Imagine Institute (with the support of the Fondation Bettencourt-Schueller). P. Bastard was supported by the “Poste CCA-INSERM-Bettencourt” (with the support of the Fondation Bettencourt-Schueller). S. Okada was supported by MEXT/JSPS KAKENHI (grant numbers 22H03041 and 22KK0113) and AMED (grant numbers JP21fk0108436 and JP22fk0108514). L.I. Gonzalez-Granado is supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) through the project FIS-PI21/01642 and cofunded by the European Union. D.C. Vinh is supported by a Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé, Senior Clinician-Scientist scholar award. Q. Pan-Hammarström was funded by the Swedish Research Council, and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. K. Kisand’s laboratory was funded by the Estonian Research Council grants PRG1117 and PRG1428. This study also received support from ISCIII (TRINEO: PI22/00162; DIAVIR: DTS19/00049; Resvi-Omics: PI19/01039 [A. Salas]; ReSVinext: PI16/01569 [F. Martinón-Torres]; Enterogen: PI19/01090 [F. Martinón-Torres]); OMI-COVI-VAC (PI22/00406 [F. Martinón-Torres] jointly financed by FEDER), GAIN: Grupos con Potencial de Crecimiento (IN607B 2020/08 [A. Salas]); ACIS: BI-BACVIR (PRIS-3 [A. Salas]), and CovidPhy (SA 304 C [A. Salas]); and consorcio Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CB21/06/00103; F. Martinón-Torres); GEN-COVID (IN845D 2020/23, F. Martinón-Torres) and Grupos de Referencia Competitiva (IIN607A2021/05, F. Martinón-Torres). The study was funded by ISCIII (COV20_01333, COV20_01334, PI16/00759, PI18/00223, PI19/00208, PI20/00876, and PI21/00211), the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (RTC-2017-6471-1; AEI/FEDER, EU), the Fundación Canaria Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Canarias (FIISC19/43, PIFIISC22/27), Grupo DISA (OA18/017), Fundación MAPFRE Guanarteme (OA21/131), Cabildo Insular de Tenerife (CGIEU0000219140 and “Apuestas científicas del ITER para colaborar en la lucha contra la COVID-19”). A. Pujol is supported by ACCI20-759 CIBERER, H2020 Marató TV3 COVID 2021-31-33, the HORIZON-HLTH-2021-ID: 101057100 (UNDINE), the Horizon 2020 program under grant no. 824110 (EasiGenomics grant no. COVID-19/PID12342), and the CERCA Program/Generalitat de Catalunya. This research is supported by the European Reference Network for Rare Immunodeficiency, Autoinflammatory and Autoimmune Diseases. Open Access funding provided by Rockefeller University

Famílies botàniques de plantes medicinals

Facultat de Farmàcia, Universitat de Barcelona. Ensenyament: Grau de Farmàcia, Assignatura: Botànica Farmacèutica, Curs: 2013-2014, Coordinadors: Joan Simon, Cèsar Blanché i Maria Bosch.Els materials que aquí es presenten són els recull de 175 treballs d’una família botànica d’interès medicinal realitzats de manera individual. Els treballs han estat realitzat per la totalitat dels estudiants dels grups M-2 i M-3 de l’assignatura Botànica Farmacèutica durant els mesos d’abril i maig del curs 2013-14. Tots els treballs s’han dut a terme a través de la plataforma de GoogleDocs i han estat tutoritzats pel professor de l’assignatura i revisats i finalment co-avaluats entre els propis estudiants. L’objectiu principal de l’activitat ha estat fomentar l’aprenentatge autònom i col·laboratiu en Botànica farmacèutica

Contemporary use of cefazolin for MSSA infective endocarditis: analysis of a national prospective cohort

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the real use of cefazolin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infective endocarditis (IE) in the Spanish National Endocarditis Database (GAMES) and to compare it with antistaphylococcal penicillin (ASP). Methods: Prospective cohort study with retrospective analysis of a cohort of MSSA IE treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Outcomes assessed were relapse; intra-hospital, overall, and endocarditis-related mortality; and adverse events. Risk of renal toxicity with each treatment was evaluated separately. Results: We included 631 IE episodes caused by MSSA treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Antibiotic treatment was cloxacillin, cefazolin, or both in 537 (85%), 57 (9%), and 37 (6%) episodes, respectively. Patients treated with cefazolin had significantly higher rates of comorbidities (median Charlson Index 7, P <0.01) and previous renal failure (57.9%, P <0.01). Patients treated with cloxacillin presented higher rates of septic shock (25%, P = 0.033) and new-onset or worsening renal failure (47.3%, P = 0.024) with significantly higher rates of in-hospital mortality (38.5%, P = 0.017). One-year IE-related mortality and rate of relapses were similar between treatment groups. None of the treatments were identified as risk or protective factors. Conclusion: Our results suggest that cefazolin is a valuable option for the treatment of MSSA IE, without differences in 1-year mortality or relapses compared with cloxacillin, and might be considered equally effective

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P\u3c0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P\u3c0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P\u3c0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine

Prospective observational cohort study on grading the severity of postoperative complications in global surgery research

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high- (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7-day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally

Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit: prospective analysis of data from 27 countries

This was an investigator initiated study funded by Nestle Health Sciences through an unrestricted research grant, and by a National Institute for Health Research (UK) Professorship held by RP. The study was sponsored by Queen Mary University of London