Mach’s Principle in a Mixed Newton-Einstein Context

A closed physical space, in conjunction with scalar versus pseudo scalar distinctions, and an accordingly adapted Gauss theorem, reveal unexpected perspectives on Mach\u27s principle, the mass-energy theorem, and a bonus insight into the nature of the solutions of the Einstein field equations of gravity

On Levi-Civita’s Alternating Symbol, Schouten’s Alternating Unit Tensors, CPT, and Quantization

The purpose of the present article is to demonstrate that by adopting a unifying differential geometric perspective on certain themes in physics one reaps remarkable new dividends in both microscopic and macroscopic domains. By replacing algebraic objects by tensor-transforming objects and introducing methods from the theory of differentiable manifolds at a very fundamental level we obtain a Kottler-Cartan metric-independent general invariance of the Maxwell field, which in turn makes for a global quantum superstructure for Gauss-Amp`ere and Aharonov-Bohm “quantum integrals.” Beyond this, our approach shows that postulating a Riemannian metric at the quantum level is an unnecessary concept and our differential geometric, or more accurately topological yoga can substitute successfully for statistical mechanics

Thoracic outlet syndrome (TROTS) registry: A study protocol for the primary upper extremity deep venous thrombosis section

Introduction There is a lack of comprehensive and uniform data on primary upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (pUEDVT). pUEDVT includes venous thoracic outlet syndrome related upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT) and idiopathic UEDVT. Research on these conditions has been hampered by their rarity, lack of uniform diagnostic criteria, and heterogeneity in therapeutic strategies. To improve current research data collection using input of all various pUEDVT treating medical specialists, we initiated the ThoRacic OuTlet Syndrome (TROTS) registry. The aim of the TROTS registry is to a) collect extensive data on all pUEDVT patients through a predefined protocol, b) give insight in the long term outcome using patient reported outcome measures, c) create guidance in the diagnostic and clinical management of these conditions, and thereby d) help provide content for future research. Methods and analysis The TROTS registry was designed as an international prospective longitudinal observational registry for data collection on pUEDVT patients. All pUEDVT patients, regardless of treatment received, can be included in the registry after informed consent is obtained. All relevant data regarding the initial presentation, diagnostics, treatment, and follow-up will be collected prospectively in an electronic case report form. In addition, a survey containing general questions, a Health-related Quality of Life questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), and Functional Disability questionnaire (Quick-DASH) will be sent periodically (at the time of inclusion, one and two years after inclusion, and every five years after inclusion) to the participant. The registry protocol was approved by the Medical Ethical Review Board and registered in the Netherlands Trial Register under Trial-ID NL9680. The data generated by the registry will be used for future research on pUEDVT and published in peer reviewed journals. Conclusion TROTS registry data will be used to further establish the optimal management of pUEDVT and lay the foundation for future research and guidelines

Thoracic outlet syndrome (TROTS) registry:A study protocol for the primary upper extremity deep venous thrombosis section

Introduction There is a lack of comprehensive and uniform data on primary upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (pUEDVT). pUEDVT includes venous thoracic outlet syndrome related upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT) and idiopathic UEDVT. Research on these conditions has been hampered by their rarity, lack of uniform diagnostic criteria, and heterogeneity in therapeutic strategies. To improve current research data collection using input of all various pUEDVT treating medical specialists, we initiated the ThoRacic OuTlet Syndrome (TROTS) registry. The aim of the TROTS registry is to a) collect extensive data on all pUEDVT patients through a predefined protocol, b) give insight in the long term outcome using patient reported outcome measures, c) create guidance in the diagnostic and clinical management of these conditions, and thereby d) help provide content for future research. Methods and analysis The TROTS registry was designed as an international prospective longitudinal observational registry for data collection on pUEDVT patients. All pUEDVT patients, regardless of treatment received, can be included in the registry after informed consent is obtained. All relevant data regarding the initial presentation, diagnostics, treatment, and follow-up will be collected prospectively in an electronic case report form. In addition, a survey containing general questions, a Health-related Quality of Life questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), and Functional Disability questionnaire (Quick-DASH) will be sent periodically (at the time of inclusion, one and two years after inclusion, and every five years after inclusion) to the participant. The registry protocol was approved by the Medical Ethical Review Board and registered in the Netherlands Trial Register under Trial-ID NL9680. The data generated by the registry will be used for future research on pUEDVT and published in peer reviewed journals. Conclusion TROTS registry data will be used to further establish the optimal management of pUEDVT and lay the foundation for future research and guidelines

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients

Background: Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. Methods: Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. Results: Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. Conclusions: Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome

A multi-country analysis of COVID-19 hospitalizations by vaccination status

Background: Individuals vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), when infected, can still develop disease that requires hospitalization. It remains unclear whether these patients differ from hospitalized unvaccinated patients with regard to presentation, coexisting comorbidities, and outcomes. Methods: Here, we use data from an international consortium to study this question and assess whether differences between these groups are context specific. Data from 83,163 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (34,843 vaccinated, 48,320 unvaccinated) from 38 countries were analyzed. Findings: While typical symptoms were more often reported in unvaccinated patients, comorbidities, including some associated with worse prognosis in previous studies, were more common in vaccinated patients. Considerable between-country variation in both in-hospital fatality risk and vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated difference in this outcome was observed. Conclusions: These findings will inform allocation of healthcare resources in future surges as well as design of longer-term international studies to characterize changes in clinical profile of hospitalized COVID-19 patients related to vaccination history. Funding: This work was made possible by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome (215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z, and 220757/Z/20/Z); the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1209135); and the philanthropic support of the donors to the University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund (0009109). Additional funders are listed in the "acknowledgments" section

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Association of Country Income Level With the Characteristics and Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients Hospitalized With Acute Kidney Injury and COVID-19

Introduction: Acute kidney injury (AKI) has been identified as one of the most common and significant problems in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. However, studies examining the relationship between COVID-19 and AKI in low- and low-middle income countries (LLMIC) are lacking. Given that AKI is known to carry a higher mortality rate in these countries, it is important to understand differences in this population. Methods: This prospective, observational study examines the AKI incidence and characteristics of 32,210 patients with COVID-19 from 49 countries across all income levels who were admitted to an intensive care unit during their hospital stay. Results: Among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit, AKI incidence was highest in patients in LLMIC, followed by patients in upper-middle income countries (UMIC) and high-income countries (HIC) (53%, 38%, and 30%, respectively), whereas dialysis rates were lowest among patients with AKI from LLMIC and highest among those from HIC (27% vs. 45%). Patients with AKI in LLMIC had the largest proportion of community-acquired AKI (CA-AKI) and highest rate of in-hospital death (79% vs. 54% in HIC and 66% in UMIC). The association between AKI, being from LLMIC and in-hospital death persisted even after adjusting for disease severity. Conclusions: AKI is a particularly devastating complication of COVID-19 among patients from poorer nations where the gaps in accessibility and quality of healthcare delivery have a major impact on patient outcomes