Rapid Improvement after Starting Elexacaftor–Tezacaftor–Ivacaftor in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis and Advanced Pulmonary Disease

International audienceRationale: Elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor is a CFTR (cystic fibrosis [CF] transmembrane conductance regulator) modulator combination, developed for patients with CF with at least one Phe508del mutation. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of elexacaftor-tezacaftor- ivacaftor in patients with CF and advanced respiratory disease. Methods: A prospective observational study, including all patients aged ⩾12 years and with a percent-predicted FEV1 (ppFEV1) <40 who initiated elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor from December 2019 to August 2020 in France was conducted. Clinical characteristics were collected at initiation and at 1 and 3 months. Safety and effectiveness were evaluated by September 2020. National-level transplantation and mortality figures for 2020 were obtained from the French CF and transplant centers and registries. Measurements and Main Results: Elexacaftor-tezacaftor- ivacaftor was initiated in 245 patients with a median (interquartile range) ppFEV1 = 29 (24-34). The mean (95% confidence interval) absolute increase in the ppFEV1 was +15.1 (+13.8 to +16.4; P < 0.0001), and the mean (95% confidence interval) in weight was +4.2 kg (+3.9 to +4.6; P < 0.0001). The number of patients requiring long-term oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, and/or enteral tube feeding decreased by 50%, 30%, and 50%, respectively (P < 0.01). Although 16 patients were on the transplant waiting list and 37 were undergoing transplantation evaluation at treatment initiation, only 2 received a transplant, and 1 died. By September 2020, only five patients were still on the transplantation path. Compared with the previous 2 years, a twofold decrease in the number of lung transplantations in patients with CF was observed in 2020, whereas the number of deaths without transplantation remained stable. Conclusions: In patients with advanced disease, elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor is associated with rapid clinical improvement, often leading to the indication for lung transplantation being suspended

Benefits and risks of noninvasive oxygenation strategy in COVID-19: a multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals

International audienceAbstract Rational To evaluate the respective impact of standard oxygen, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on oxygenation failure rate and mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Methods Multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. Demographic, clinical, respiratory support, oxygenation failure, and survival data were collected. Oxygenation failure was defined as either intubation or death in the ICU without intubation. Variables independently associated with oxygenation failure and Day-90 mortality were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. Results From February 25 to May 4, 2020, 4754 patients were admitted in ICU. Of these, 1491 patients were not intubated on the day of ICU admission and received standard oxygen therapy (51%), HFNC (38%), or NIV (11%) ( P < 0.001). Oxygenation failure occurred in 739 (50%) patients (678 intubation and 61 death). For standard oxygen, HFNC, and NIV, oxygenation failure rate was 49%, 48%, and 60% ( P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, HFNC (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36–0.99, P = 0.013) but not NIV (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.78–3.21) was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure). Overall 90-day mortality was 21%. By multivariable analysis, HFNC was not associated with a change in mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61–1.33), while NIV was associated with increased mortality (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.79–4.21, P < 0.001). Conclusion In patients with COVID-19, HFNC was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure without improvement in 90-day mortality, whereas NIV was associated with a higher mortality in these patients. Randomized controlled trials are needed

Correction: Rare predicted loss-of-function variants of type I IFN immunity genes are associated with life-threatening COVID-19

International audienc

Rare predicted loss-of-function variants of type I IFN immunity genes are associated with life-threatening COVID-19

BackgroundWe previously reported that impaired type I IFN activity, due to inborn errors of TLR3- and TLR7-dependent type I interferon (IFN) immunity or to autoantibodies against type I IFN, account for 15-20% of cases of life-threatening COVID-19 in unvaccinated patients. Therefore, the determinants of life-threatening COVID-19 remain to be identified in similar to 80% of cases.MethodsWe report here a genome-wide rare variant burden association analysis in 3269 unvaccinated patients with life-threatening COVID-19, and 1373 unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals without pneumonia. Among the 928 patients tested for autoantibodies against type I IFN, a quarter (234) were positive and were excluded.ResultsNo gene reached genome-wide significance. Under a recessive model, the most significant gene with at-risk variants was TLR7, with an OR of 27.68 (95%CI 1.5-528.7, P=1.1x10(-4)) for biochemically loss-of-function (bLOF) variants. We replicated the enrichment in rare predicted LOF (pLOF) variants at 13 influenza susceptibility loci involved in TLR3-dependent type I IFN immunity (OR=3.70[95%CI 1.3-8.2], P=2.1x10(-4)). This enrichment was further strengthened by (1) adding the recently reported TYK2 and TLR7 COVID-19 loci, particularly under a recessive model (OR=19.65[95%CI 2.1-2635.4], P=3.4x10(-3)), and (2) considering as pLOF branchpoint variants with potentially strong impacts on splicing among the 15 loci (OR=4.40[9%CI 2.3-8.4], P=7.7x10(-8)). Finally, the patients with pLOF/bLOF variants at these 15 loci were significantly younger (mean age [SD]=43.3 [20.3] years) than the other patients (56.0 [17.3] years; P=1.68x10(-5)).ConclusionsRare variants of TLR3- and TLR7-dependent type I IFN immunity genes can underlie life-threatening COVID-19, particularly with recessive inheritance, in patients under 60 years old

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

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

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